Project Proposal to the Adaptation Fund

PROJECT PROPOSAL TO THE ADAPTATION FUND

PART I: PROJECT INFORMATION

Project Category: Regular Country: South Africa Title of Project: Taking Adaptation to the Ground: A Small Grants Facility for Enabling Local Level Responses to Climate Change Type of Implementing Entity: National Implementing Entity: South African National Biodiversity Institute Executing Entity: SouthSouthNorth Trust Amount of Financing Requested: USD 2,442,682

Short Summary

Climate change projections have indicated that both the Mopani District, in Limpopo in the north east of South Africa, and the Namakwa District, in the Northern Cape in the north west of South Africa, will be subject to increasing temperatures and changing rainfall patterns. According to local scale analysis of historical trends and future projections, there is a distinct warming trend for both Mopani and Namakwa, which will be far more severe by 2050 if global mitigation efforts are unsuccessful. Rainfall changes are much less certain, with temporal and spatial variability. Yet in historical trends there are indications of an increase in the intensity of heavy rainfall events in both areas, evident through a decrease in the number of rain days coupled with an unchanged average annual rainfall. Warming, and the associated increase in the number of extremely warm days, is set to impact evaporation rates and water availability. This is a concern as water is already scarce in Namakwa and in parts of Mopani. Greater amplitude of dry and wet spells, along with increasing temperatures, will negatively impact already stressed communities in both areas – thus rendering them more vulnerable to the impacts of climate variability and change, more specifically droughts, seasonal shifts and storm- related disaster events.

Climate-related risks are generally greater for disadvantaged, rural and poor communities because of limited adaptive capacity and greater sensitivity to climate-driven impacts. Both Mopani and Namakwa Districts are characterised by the prevalence of rural, poor communities vulnerable to the impacts of climate variability and change. This threat requires climate finance for adaptation activities to find its way to these most vulnerable communities. However, such communities typically lack the capacity required to access the necessary funding. The project thus entails the implementation of a small grant finance mechanism to address this financial, capacity and adaptation need.

The Community Adaptation Small Grants Facility (SGF) will increase climate resilience in rural communities and socio-economic systems in these two pilot district municipalities in South Africa, by working directly with local stakeholders and anticipated beneficiaries through a small granting mechanism. The overall goal of the project is to ensure that vulnerable, rural communities in the project target areas have reduced vulnerability and increased resilience to the anticipated impacts of climate variability and change. The objective is to incorporate climate adaptation response strategies into local practices so that assets, livelihoods and ecosystem services are protected from climate- induced risks associated with expected droughts, seasonal shifts and storm-related disaster events. The project will do so through three main components: i) providing small grants to vulnerable communities that deliver tangible and sustainable benefits; ii) empowering local institutions to identify and implement adaptation response measures; and iii) compiling and sharing lessons learned to facilitate future scaling up and replication of small grant-financing approaches.

The Community Adaptation SGF will be led by SouthSouthNorth (SSN) Trust, who will act as the Executing Entity (EE), and Conservation South Africa (CSA), who will act as the Facilitating Agency in the Namakwa District. The Facilitating Agency for the Mopani District is still to be selected.

Table of Contents

PART I: PROJECT INFORMATION ...... 1 Short Summary ...... 1 Acronyms ...... 3 Project Background and Context: ...... 4 Project Objectives: ...... 17 Project Components and Financing: ...... 18 Projected Calendar: ...... 19 PART II: PROJECT JUSTIFICATION ...... 19 A. Describe the project components, particularly focusing on the concrete adaptation activities of the project, and how these activities contribute to climate resilience...... 19 B. Describe how the project provides economic, social and environmental benefits, with particular reference to the most vulnerable communities, and vulnerable groups within communities, including gender considerations. Describe how the project will avoid or mitigate negative impacts, in compliance with the Environmental and Social Policy of the Adaptation Fund...... 32 C. Describe or provide an analysis of the cost-effectiveness of the proposed project...... 36 D. Describe how the project is consistent with national or sub-national sustainable development strategies, including, where appropriate, national or sub-national development plans, poverty reduction strategies, national communications, or national adaptation programs of action, or other relevant instruments, where they exist...... 38 E. Describe how the project meets relevant national technical standards, where applicable, such as standards for environmental assessment, building codes, etc., and complies with the Environmental and Social Policy of the Adaptation Fund...... 39 F. Describe if there is duplication of project with other funding sources, if any...... 40 G. If applicable, describe the learning and knowledge management component to capture and disseminate lessons learned...... 44 H. Describe the consultative process, including the list of stakeholders consulted, undertaken during project preparation, with particular reference to vulnerable groups, including gender considerations, in compliance with the Environmental and Social Policy of the Adaptation Fund. 44 I. Provide justification for funding requested, focusing on the full cost of adaptation reasoning.50 J. Describe how the sustainability of the project outcomes has been taken into account when designing the project...... 52 K. Provide an overview of the environmental and social impacts and risks identified as being relevant to the project...... 53 PART III: IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS ...... 55 A. Describe the arrangements for project implementation...... 55 B. Describe the measures for financial and project risk management...... 60 C. Describe the measures for environmental and social risk management, in line with the Environmental and Social Policy of the Adaptation Fund...... 62 D. Describe the monitoring and evaluation arrangements and provide a budgeted M&E plan. . 62 E. Include a results framework for the project, including milestones, targets and indicators...... 66 F. Demonstrate how the project aligns with the Results Framework of the Adaptation Fund .... 69 G. Include a detailed budget with budget notes, a budget on the Implementing Entity management fee use, and an explanation and a breakdown of the execution costs...... 71 H. Include a disbursement schedule with time-bound milestones...... 74 PART IV: ENDORSEMENT BY GOVERNMENT AND CERTIFICATION BY THE IMPLEMENTING ENTITY ...... 75 ANNEXES ...... 76

Acronyms African Climate and Development ACDI LAMOSA Land Access Movement of South Africa Initiative Limpopo Department of Economic AF Adaptation Fund LEDET Development, Environment and Tourism Association of Limpopo Early Childhood Limpopo Organic Farmers & Excillie Co- ALERT LIOFA Development Resource & Training operative Association for Water and Rural AWARD LTAS Long Term Adaptation Scenarios Development Cooperative for Assistance and Relief CARE M&E Monitoring and Evaluation Everywhere CBOs Community Based Organisations NAMKO Namakwa Ontwikkeling CDW Community Development Workers NCCC National Climate Change Committee National Climate Change Response CEO Chief Executive Officer NCCRP Policy CEPF Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund NDP National Development Plan CPA Communal Property Association NGOs Non-Government Organisations CSA Conservation South Africa NIE National Implementing Entity Council for Scientific and Industrial CSIR NPC National Planning Commission Research DBSA Development Bank of Southern Africa PM Project Manager DEA Department of Environmental Affairs PSC Project Steering Committee DRR Disaster Risk Reduction PSC Project Steering Committee

EbA Ecosystem-based Adaptation RCP Representative Concentration Pathway

EE Executing Entity RESILIM Resilience in the Limpopo/Olifants Basin

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment SAHP South Atlantic High Pressure South African National Biodiversity EMG Environmental Monitoring Group SANBI Institute ENSO El Niño Southern Oscillation SDF Spatial Development Frameworks ESP Environmental and Social Policy SGF Small Grants Facility Small Grants Facility for Conservation FA Facilitating Agency SKEPPIES and Development in the Succulent Karoo Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources FANPRAN SNC Second National Communication Policy Analysis Network FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation SSN SouthSouthNorth FSC Food Sovereignty Campaign SST Sea Surface Temperatures GCM General Circulation Models TC Tropical Cyclones GDP Gross Domestic Product ToR Terms of Reference Global Environment Facility Small Grants GEF-SGP UCT University of Cape Town Programme Gender University of Venda Income Generation GenderCC Southern Africa UIGC CCSA Centre United Nations Framework Convention IDP Integrated Development Plan UNFCCC on Climate Change Intergovernmental Committee for Climate IGCCC VA Vulnerability Assessment Change KDOR Catholic Development Orange River

Project Background and Context:

South Africa‟s National Climate Change Response Strategy clearly emphasizes that climate change will place additional stress on South Africa‟s agricultural systems and water security. More intense storms and floods, droughts and fires are already apparent, and extreme climatic events are causing severe damage to the agricultural sector, with a devastating impact on the country‟s rural poor. Marginalised groups in South Africa are already experiencing a range of stressors. Climate variability and change is an existing, additional stressor that is anticipated to increase in intensity. Thus, adaptation measures that build climate resilience of rural communities in the short- and long-term are crucial.

While South Africa has a National Climate Change Response Strategy at the national level, policy development processes for climate change, and tools for planning for climate change responses, there is still limited implementation at the grassroots level. The need for vulnerable groups to be provided with opportunities to directly access finance for climate change adaptation emerged in various South African stakeholder processes, including community workshops run by grassroots organisations and the inaugural stakeholder consultation workshop of the National Implementing Entity (NIE). The project, which responds to this urgent need to support vulnerable groups in responding to observed and anticipated impacts of climate variability and change, entails the implementation of a small grant financing mechanism. The project, hereafter referred to as the Community Adaptation Small Grant Facility (SGF), will ensure that appropriate and effective local adaptation measures are developed and implemented through a number of small grant projects that build the climate resilience of vulnerable groups and the long-term sustainability of livelihoods – taking into account short- and long-term climate forecasts.

The emphasis of the Community Adaptation SGF will be to support projects that generate tangible adaptation responses, with a particular focus on rural areas. In order to plan and implement adaptive strategies that increase the resilience of these groups, the approach will harness local creativity while appropriately integrating scientific and local knowledge in the planning and implementation of integrated adaptation responses in order to reduce the risk of maladaptation. By providing a direct finance opportunity for these groups, coupled with a process that empowers communities to participate meaningfully in project identification and implementation, the Community Adaptation SGF will effectively inform national South African policy processes by providing concrete examples of integrated adaptation responses at the local level.

To test the small grant mechanism for community-based adaptation, the Community Adaptation SGF will focus on two district municipalities that are already experiencing climate stress through the changing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events (including greater incidence of heat stress, dry spells and extreme rainfall events) and rising air temperatures. The two project target areas represent valuable contrasts to maximize learning opportunities, in terms of climate (summer vs. winter rainfall area), aridity (sub-tropical climate vs. semi-desert), population density (high vs. low population density) and agricultural practices (cattle farming and locally relevant crop production vs. sheep and goat farming). It is envisaged that the proposed approach will provide robust lessons and insights for future funding mechanisms that are currently being planned by South Africa‟s National Treasury Department in support of the green economy generally and adaptation more specifically.

The two project target areas are the Mopani District (Limpopo Province) and the Namakwa District (Northern Cape Province) (Figures 1, 4 and 5). Both districts have been actively working on defining response strategies to climate change, thus providing a good basis for supporting practical adaptation initiatives in these areas to increase resilience of vulnerable groups. Recent work to assess climate change projections has indicated that both regions will be subject to increasing temperatures and changing rainfall patterns.

Figure 1: Map of South Africa showing Mopani District and Namakwa District, located in Limpopo Province and Northern Cape Province, respectively.

The climate analysis is based on the latest climate change projections, prepared under South Africa‟s Long Term Adaptation Scenarios (LTAS) Flagship Research Programme1 Phase 1 process2. The LTAS data analysis includes historical trends, as well as statistically and dynamically downscaled projections for South Africa. In order to gain a better understanding of the local scale projections for the two project target areas, a study was commissioned for a spatially specific analysis of data from the downscaled projections produced under the LTAS. A full report, developed by the African Climate and Development Initiative (ACDI) at the University of Cape Town (UCT), and can be found as Annex I.23.

Results from a South African trend analysis, conducted under South Africa‟s LTAS Phase 1 process, provide up to date insight into historical temperature and rainfall trends for the two project target areas extending to the year 2010. These analyses confirm and extend several previous published analyses summarised in South Africa‟s Second National Communication (SNC) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that extended to the year 2000. Based on zonal analysis for the country, both the zone within which Mopani is based and the zone within which most of Namakwa is based show a steady increase in annual maximum temperatures for the historical period 1960 to 2010. Additionally, the analysis shows a steady increase in the number of extremely warm days. In terms of rainfall, the zonal analysis shows that while there has only been a very slight decrease in the annual average rainfall for both areas, there has been a steady decrease in the number of rain days. This indicates that while the overall precipitation is more or less unchanged, rainfall events have become less frequent and more intense, and with longer dry spell

1 The Long-Term Adaptation Scenarios (LTAS) Flagship Research Programme (2012-2014) is a multi-sectoral research programme, mandated by the South African National Climate Change Response White Paper. The LTAS aims to develop national and sub-national adaptation scenarios for South Africa under plausible climate conditions and development pathways. During its first Phase (completed in June 2013), fundamental climate modelling and related sector-based impacts and adaptation scoping were conducted and synthesised. 2 Department of Environmental Affairs, 2013. Long-Term Adaptation Scenarios (LTAS) Research Programme for South Africa. Climate Trends and Scenarios for South Africa. Pretoria, South Africa. 3 Brodrick, Rahiz and New, 2014. Analysis of downscaled climate model results for the areas of Mopani and Namakwa, South Africa, at the district municipality scale. Report prepared by ACDI for the SANBI NIE.

duration in-between, exacerbated by higher air temperatures. The historical trend figures can be found in Annex I.1.

These historical trends are to varying degrees aligned with future projections, which indicate significant temperature increases across South Africa, but with rainfall projections being less consistent and more spatially variable4. Projections from General Circulation Models (GCMs) indicate that mean annual rainfall changes will vary across the country. Temperature change projections are more spatially consistent than those of rainfall, with projections showing substantial increases across South Africa, but with the interior warming at a greater rate than the coastal areas.

According to the local scale analysis conducted by ACDI it is clear that for both Mopani and Namakwa there is less uncertainty in the temperature projections than the precipitation projections. All approaches show a distinct warming trend, growing stronger towards the end of the 21st Century. Many of the projected changes fall within the range of historical natural variability, and – especially in the long-term – the inherent uncertainty is high.

Mopani falls into the summer rainfall zone of South Africa. Summers are warm (mean maximums of ~30°C), and wet, with the majority of precipitation falling in mid-summer. Winters are mild (mean minimums of ~8°C) and dry. Annual rainfall in the Mopani district varies between 400 and 900mm, largely as a result of the complex topography. To highlight this, Tzaneen – surrounded by large hills – receives mean annual precipitation of 881mm5, while Giyani only 421mm6. There is large inter-annual variability, with monthly maximum rainfall sometimes reaching 340mm, in comparison to the usual 50- 100 monthly totals7 for the summer months.

For Mopani appreciable warming over the area is projected, in line with the recent LTAS trend analysis. In the short-term future (2020s), temperature rises will be in the range of 1 – 2°C, with greater warming in summer than in the other seasons. The north, and to a lesser extent the west, of the district is projected to warm more than the south and east. Mid-term (2050s) sees warming between 1 and 3°C, as can be observed in Figure 2 below, with greater warming in the west than the east, and particularly in spring. For the long-term future (2080s), warming of between 2 and 5°C is projected, particularly in the south and in winter, with less warming in the central regions in autumn. The Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP)8.5 emission pathway (no mitigation) results indicate very significant warming in the long-term future – up to 6°C.

Precipitation projections are less clear. As observed in Figure 3, in the short-term (2020s), a weak annual wetting trend is shown, especially in the east, with more robust evidence of wetting in autumn. In the summer and winter months, however, weak drying is projected, mostly in the north-east and west respectively. In the autumn of mid-term (2050s), the south-east is set to receive slightly more precipitation, whereas in summer, the north and east are projected to become drier. With the exception of winter, the long-term future (2080s) is projected to dry more in the north than the south.

The El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is responsible for appreciable inter-annual variability in the summer rainfall zone of South Africa. Climate change will increasingly affect ENSO, which in turn will influence the formation of Tropical-temperate troughs, and Indian Ocean sea surface temperatures (SSTs). Accordingly, it is possible that inter-annual variability in rainfall will increase further in this region. Furthermore, while few tropical cyclones (TCs) have penetrated South Africa in recorded history, the mean global increase of SSTs due to climate change is causing the 26°C isotherm (integral to the formation of TCs) to move further south8. Along with increased energy in the global atmospheric system, it is possible that these TCs may contribute towards heavy rainfall and flooding in the eastern parts of the Limpopo province, further exacerbating rainfall variability.

4 Department of Environmental Affairs (2011) South Africa’s Second National Communication Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. [http://www.sanbi.org/sites/default/files/documents/documents/201111sasncpubl.pdf] 5 South Africa Explorer. 2014. Tzaneen climate. [Online]. Available: http://www.saexplorer.co.za/south- africa/climate/tzaneen_climate.asp [16 July 2014]. 6 South Africa Explorer. 2014. Giyani climate. [Online]. Available: http://www.saexplorer.co.za/south- africa/climate/giyani_climate.asp [16 July 2014]. 7 FAO. n.d. Drought impact mitigation and prevention in the Limpopo River Basin - Chapter 2: Biophysical characteristics. FAO Natural Resources Management and Environment Department. [Online]. Available: http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/y5744e/y5744e05.htm#TopOfPage [17 July 2014]. 8 Fitchett, J.M., & Grab, S.W. 2014. A 66-year tropical cyclone record for south-east Africa: temporal trends in a global context. Int. J. of Climatol. (2014). Published online in Wiley Online Library.

Figure 2: The annual maximum temperature anomaly for the 2020s with respect to the historical period, based on the RCP4.5 emission scenarios. Mopani District is shown on the left, and Namakwa District on the right. Rows 1-3 represent the anomaly of the 90th percentile of the model ensemble (top), the ensemble median (middle) and the 10th percentile of the ensemble (bottom), respectively9.

9 Brodrick, Rahiz and New, 2014. Analysis of downscaled climate model results for the areas of Mopani and Namakwa, South Africa, at the district municipality scale. Report prepared by ACDI for the SANBI NIE.

Figure 3: The annual precipitation anomaly for the 2020s with respect to the historical period, based on the RCP4.5 emission scenarios. Mopani District is shown on the left, and Namakwa District on the right. Rows 1-3 represent the anomaly of the 90th percentile of the model ensemble (top), the ensemble median (middle) and the 10th percentile of the ensemble (bottom), respectively10.

10 Brodrick, Rahiz and New, 2014. Analysis of downscaled climate model results for the areas of Mopani and Namakwa, South Africa, at the district municipality scale. Report prepared by ACDI for the SANBI NIE.

The Namakwa District Municipality is very large – thus a single climate is difficult to characterise. The vast majority of the District falls into the winter rainfall zone of South Africa, mostly receiving its rainfall from mid-latitude cyclones (cold fronts). It is not uncommon, however, for the extreme east of the district to experience thunderstorm-associated rainfall in the summer months. Summers are hot (mean maximums of ~30°C) and dry. Winters are cool (mean minimums of 1°C) and wet in places. The Namakwa area is classified as semi-desert, due to its low precipitation amounts. The mean annual rainfall in the Namakwa district varies between less than 100mm along the coastal belt to between 100 and 250mm inland. Much of the district receives low – but more importantly – largely predictable winter rainfall11.

As with the Mopani region, projected temperature rises in Namakwa in the short-term future (2020s) will be in the range of 1 – 2°C, with greater warming is spring than in the other seasons. For all the seasons, there is a fairly strong warming bias to the north east. Mid-term (2050s) sees warming between 1 and 3°C, with greater warming in the east, particularly in summer. Long-term (2080s) sees warming between 2 and 5°C, in winter particularly, with greater warming projected in the east than the west, across the seasons. Warming is generally less pronounced over the coastal areas of the region.

For short-term (2020s) precipitation, there is high variability within and between datasets. As with the Mopani region, weak annual wetting is projected, particularly to the east in autumn, with a drying summer. The north east is set to dry in autumn, while the south west is set to wet slightly. Mid-term (2050s) shows weak wetting in autumn, particularly in the south-west. In spring and summer, however, it is set to dry weakly and moderately respectively, especially in the south-west. In autumn and winter of the long-term (2080s), weak wetting is projected in the south-west, while weak drying is projected for the south-west in spring and summer.

The western interior of South Africa – which incorporates the Namakwa region – receives in excess of 80% of possible sunshine, in both summer and winter12). This pre-disposition to solar radiation makes the region particularly sensitive to increasing temperatures, particularly maximum temperature. The extreme eastern parts of the Namakwa District can receive summer rainfall linked to thunderstorm activity. Because total radiation directly affects cloud-producing weather systems13, this region may receive increased rainfall from such systems in the summer months.

The South Atlantic High Pressure (SAHP) largely drives the Benguela current14, which has an enormous influence on the climate of Namakwa. Also linked to the SAHP is the West Coast Trough, which produces widespread rain over the western parts of South Africa, from early summer to autumn15. Under climate change increases in energy to the system may affect the SAHP, thus having a direct effect on the area‟s climate and particularly rain-producing systems. As a result of a possibly strengthening SAHP, the frontal systems that provide the majority of Namakwa with its winter rainfall are projected to move further south, but also increase in intensity. This may result in fewer rainfall events, but with heavier rainfall during such events, as is already apparent in the historical trend analysis outlined above. This will further increase the variability of rainfall in the region.

For further details on the local scale analysis, see Annex I.2 for the abridged report from ACDI. The full report is available on request.

Project target areas

The Mopani District: Mopani District Municipality (Figure 4) is one of the six districts of Limpopo province of South Africa. It comprises of five local municipalities i.e. Maruleng, Ba-Phalaborwa, Greater Giyani, Greater Letaba and Greater Tzaneen. Agriculture is the most important economic sector in Maruleng, Greater Giyani, Greater Letaba and Greater Tzaneen. In addition to citrus fruits, sub-tropical fruit, including mangoes, avocadoes and bananas are grown. The mining sector contributes 30% to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), followed by the general government services sector (17%) and finance and business services (15%).

11 Desmet, P.G., & Cowling, R.M. 1999. Biodiversity, habitat and range-size aspects of a flora from a winter-rainfall desert in north-western Namaqualand, South Africa. Plant Ecology, 142: 23-33. 12 Tyson, P.D., & Preston-Whyte, R.A. 2000. The Weather and Climate of Southern Africa. Cape Town: Oxford University Press. 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid.

Figure 4: Mopani District Municipality is situated in Limpopo, along the north east boundary of South Africa.

According to Census 2011, the district has a population of 1,092,507 within an area of 20,011 km2 with 296,320 households. Of these people, 81% reside in rural areas, 14% reside in urban areas and 5% stay on farms. The population density varies and is on average 23 people/ha. The district has a high unemployment rate, and approximately 60% of the unemployed people are women.

According to the Fiscal and Financial Commission‟s submission for the 2013-14 Division of Revenue, two of Mopani‟s local municipalities, Greater Letaba and Greater Giyani, are said to be among the twenty municipalities in South Africa most vulnerable to climate change16. This is supported by the District‟s Reviewed Integrated Development Plan (IDP) 2006-2013, which states that Mopani contains some of the country‟s least developed and poorest communities. In 2006 11% of Mopani residents lived in a state of absolute poverty, and approximately 77% of the population live below the poverty line. Government and the farming sector are the greatest employers in the district, followed by industry, mining, trade, transport, tourism and manufacturing17.

As mentioned above, the majority of people in the district live in rural areas and the majority of these rural residents are poor. Income in rural areas is constrained by the rural economy that is unable to provide people with remunerative jobs or self-employment opportunities. In this context the additional stressors due to climate variability and change are increasingly having a devastating impact on already marginalised and vulnerable groups.

16 Turpie, J and Visser, M, 2012. Chapter 4: The impact of climate change on South Africa’s rural areas. Technical Report: Submission for the 2013/14 Division of Revenue. Published by the Financial and Fiscal Commission. Accessed at http://www.ffc.co.za/index.php/reports/technical-reports. [ 20 March 2014]. 17 Mopani District Municipality (2010). Reviewed Integrated Development Plan: 2006-2013.

The Mopani District is characterized by low rainfall, especially in the lower-lying areas. While there are no formal records of past extreme events, the historical trends outlined above and experiences on the ground indicate an increasing frequency of dry spells18 and extreme rainfall events, together with increasing temperature trends. A recent heavy rainfall event with subsequent flooding in Mopani District was, for instance, reported to have destroyed more than 668 houses and a bridge19. In February 2013, at the GenderCC Southern Africa (GenderCCSA) dialogue on „Grassroots women and climate finance‟ in Polokwane, Limpopo, a representative of Limpopo Department of Agriculture indicated that anecdotal experience on the ground shows that “when rain does fall these days, it often rains continuously for almost a week, with significant negative impacts on crop yields”.

The observed dry spells result in limited water resources culminating in severe water shortages and regular drought conditions. Subsequently, there is competition between the different water users such as agriculture, mining and forestry. The strongly adverse effect of anthropogenic climate change on agriculture and the availability of clean water in the province, where many people rely heavily on local agricultural production for household food security, are of particular concern.

The main surface water resources for Mopani District is the Letaba River catchment and its tributaries. Research has found that climate change, and the projected changes in rainfall patterns and associated flood events, is expected to exacerbate the poor health of this river system20, possibly leading to increased erosion and land degradation. Such impacts will have other knock-on effects including increased expenditure and effort on water treatment, loss of biodiversity and increased dependence by humans on a few species of plants and animals to meet food, fibre and construction needs.

Changing and unpredictable rainfall patterns, soil erosion and increasing temperatures are also likely to impact farming activities in this drought-prone area. This will include the ability of small-scale farmers to predictably produce food such as maize and beans in this drought-prone area. For example, a research study to determine the impact of climate variability on tomato production in Limpopo province21 indicated that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that agriculture could be affected by future climate variability and change, as the results demonstrated a strong negative correlation between temperature and tomato production. In fruit farming, quality, supply and sustainability of supply could also be affected, potentially compounded by projected challenges in water availability and supply in Mopani District.

Growing malnutrition has led to reports of disease-related deaths among young children weakened by hunger. Drought has also been seen to weaken animal stock and cause losses due to hypothermia during extreme rainfall events. Greater climate variability is thus costing communal farmers significant livestock losses due to a lack of grazing and water shortages in this district. With changing rainfall patterns women in Mopani are likely to find it difficult to grow food and access water for daily use. These beneficiaries have little “voice” and access to decision-making to address these challenges. A small grant facility could support the joint development of appropriate adaptation responses linking community-level needs to the policy level.

Vulnerability Assessment for Letaba and Giyani Following a request from the Mopani District to specifically focus the Community Adaptation SGF on two of their most vulnerable local municipalities, i.e. Greater Letaba (Letaba) and Greater Giyani (Giyani) (see letter from the Municipal Manager in Annex III.2), and supported by the national assessment of the South African local municipalities‟ vulnerability to climate change22, the Mopani component of the Community Adaptation SGF was set up to support projects in these two local municipalities.

18 http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/limpopo/drought-cripples-limpopo-farmers-1.1448228. 19 http://www.citypress.co.za/news/no-end-in-sight-to-the-rains/, http://oldsanews.gcis.gov.za/rss/13/13012215051001. 20 Davis C.L, Stevens N, Archer E.R.M, Van der Merwe M, Maserumule R and, Nkambule C (2009) The Impacts of Climate Change on the Kruger to Canyons Biosphere Reserve: Stakeholder Engagement Strategy Document. 21 Tshiala M. F and Olwoch J. M (2010) Impact of climate variability on tomato production in Limpopo Province, South Africa [http://repository.up.ac.za/handle/2263/16115]. 22 Turpie, J and Visser, M, 2012. Chapter 4: The impact of climate change on South Africa’s rural areas. Technical Report: Submission for the 2013/14 Division of Revenue. Published by the Financial and Fiscal Commission. Accessed at http://www.ffc.co.za/index.php/reports/technical-reports [ 20 March 2014].

To determine how local vulnerabilities will be exacerbated by projected climate change, and to settle the focus areas for climate change adaptation responses based on a sound understanding of the local dynamics and needs, a Vulnerability Assessment (VA) was conducted as part of the detailed design phase of the Community Adaptation SGF. See Annex II.1 for the full VA report. The VA followed a participatory approach, and comprised consultation with 111 stakeholders from Letaba and Giyani through the running of six vulnerability assessment workshops. Two different methodological approaches were adopted for these workshops i.e. a livelihoods and a sectoral approach. The livelihoods approach was used to identify the main livelihood activities of the communities within Letaba and Giyani, the challenges facing those activities, the underlying causes and possible solutions to those challenges. The sectoral approach made use of a step-by-step method to identify sector-specific stressors (climatic and non-climatic), impacts, sensitivities, adaptive capacity and possible adaptation responses.

A seventh workshop was held in June 2014 where the findings of the VA were presented to the relevant stakeholders. The approach was informed by earlier consultations with various departmental heads of the Mopani District Municipality who also assisted with stakeholder identification and logistics. The VA resulted in the identification of the following priority risks for Letaba and Giyani: Insufficient access to clean water: This is a climate change related concern in Mopani. Increase in average temperatures and increase in extreme temperatures will lead to increase in water demand, with people, plants and animals all requiring more water. Yet a subsequent increase in evaporation due to higher temperatures will decrease water supply. Water supply may be put under further pressure due to an increase in the intensity of heavy rainfall events, as infrastructure is unable to deal with the increase in volumes and turbidity, leading to mixing of water and sewage and foreign materials entering the water supply system. Reduced food security: Mopani‟s agricultural productivity and quality, in terms of both livestock and crops, is at risk in the face of projected climate change. Increase in average temperatures and the number of days with extreme temperatures, coupled with a shift towards rainfall falling in shorter and more intense events, can lead to heat stress, water scarcity as well as flooding and erosion. This may result in decreased grazing capacity and subsequent livestock mortality, as well as wilting and death of crops. At the same time, high intensity rainfall events can lead to soil erosion, as well as water logging of crops and grazing areas. Increasing temperatures may also lead to the introduction of or increased spread of pests, such as chilo, a moth that causes damage to fruits. Additional health challenges: Climate change may put people‟s health under stress, due to both direct and indirect impacts of increasing average temperatures and increase in days with extreme temperatures. Direct exposure to heat can lead to high blood pressure and diarrhoea associated with dehydration and fatigue. Increasing temperatures can also lead to the spread of disease, through for example the spread of mosquitos carrying malaria into areas that were previously too cold for transmission. Economic losses for small businesses and traders: The running of small businesses and traders might become increasingly challenging in the face of climate change, as increasing temperatures impacts products for which there is insufficient cooling storage. Sales of food that has gone off due to lack of access to appropriate cooling storage is already a problem in the present, and increasing temperatures will compound this problem. The health of traders without proper stalls or outlets may also be impacted by the heat. Damage to infrastructure: Communities in Mopani are set to be put under further stress as infrastructure damage from high intensity rainfall events wash away roads and bridges, cutting communities off from economic hubs and service delivery. There is also the potential for damage to housing and in the worst cases drowning.

These priority risks, together with the priority risks that were identified for the Namakwa District (as discussed below), were used as the basis to identify the Community Adaptation SGF “Investment Windows” where small grant project funding will focus, i.e. Climate Smart-Agriculture, Climate- Resilient Livelihoods and Climate-Proof Settlements.

As part of the vulnerability assessment process stakeholders also identified a number of possible climate change adaptation responses. These are outlined in Box 1 below.

Box 1: Adaptation interventions suggested by stakeholders for the Mopani District.

Insufficient access to clean water: Water harvesting, such as water tanks. Water storage facilities, such as reservoirs. Increase water use efficiency through, for example, drip irrigation.

Reduced food security: Introduce agroforestry, which among other things stabilises the soil and reduces nutrient and soil runoff. Plant pastures for supplementary feeding for livestock. Shift towards an increased use of Nguni breeds, a resilient breed of cattle. Construction of more drinking troughs for livestock. Encourage stock owners to keep livestock at minimal numbers to ensure sufficient grazing. Soil conservation structures, such as gabion baskets, to prevent erosion. Contour ploughing, to prevent erosion.

Additional health challenges: Shifting working hours to avoid the warmest times of the day. Provision of sufficient water, clothing and shelter for workers. In the case of disease, ensure timely access to treatment. Provision of mosquito nets to prevent malaria infections.

Economic losses for small businesses & traders: Development of modernised stalls/ shops that protect customers and sales people from the direct sun and the heat. Provision of proper storage facilities for perishable foods. Enabling traders and other sales people to sell products that correspond with temperatures and seasons, i.e. gem tomatoes in winter and cold drinks in summer.

Damage to infrastructure: Construction of climate resilient roads and bridges. Construction of gabions on the side of the road to prevent landslides across the roads. Grow grass to avoid erosion.

The Namakwa District: The Namakwa District (Figure 5) is one of the largest districts in South Africa, covering an area of approximately 12 million ha. According to Census 2011, the Namakwa District has a population of 115,842, with 33,856 households. Due to the arid climate and limited economic opportunities, the area has a low population density, with only slightly more than one person per square kilometer. The district population distribution is concentrated in less than 50 settlements, where water is available.

The decline in diamond mining in the area over the past few decades has led to an increase in unemployment (40-75 % across the local municipalities) and high poverty (52 %) (defined as a monthly income of less than USD 200). In communal areas, where education and skill levels are lower, the poverty rate is much higher with up to 67 % of the population living beneath the poverty line.

The majority of households in the Namakwa District are involved in agricultural livelihoods (46%)23. Agricultural activities tend towards non-intensive rangeland production due to the semi-arid conditions, and the main livelihood strategies include farming livestock (mainly goats and sheep), some cropping (rain-fed, but marginal) and, in the southern area, farming an indigenous hardy shrub crop, rooibos tea, as a cash crop.

The District is characterised by succulent plant shrublands, recognised for containing exceptional botanic diversity of global significance. This diversity, particularly large spring floral displays, plays a large role in the tourism sector.

23 Census 2011 Namakwa District Municipal Factsheet. Statistics South Africa (2012) [Retrieved 13 December 2012].

Figure 5: Namakwa District Municipality is situated in the arid areas of the Northern Cape, in the north west of South Africa.

Climate change projections compiled for the Namakwa Climate Change VA (2012)24 indicate that the area is predicted to become hotter and drier. The climate models consistently show an expected increase in temperature across the district in best, median and worst case scenarios. Although there is greater uncertainty regarding rainfall patterns, the models show reductions overall in annual rainfall in the worst and median case scenarios for areas with current high rainfall. The best case scenario shows a small probability of an increase in rainfall in some areas, but even in this case the effects on soil moisture are likely to be offset by increasing air temperatures. There are also projections of greater frequency and intensity of storm events and droughts25. Climatic trends are already negatively impacting on already marginal livelihood systems in the area. A further decrease in rainfall or greater amplitude of dry and wet spells, along with increasing temperatures, will negatively impact on already stressed groups – thus rendering them more vulnerable.

In a 2008 survey of climate impact in the region, the majority of the population indicated significant impacts from drought events, primarily in the agriculture, water and ecotourism sectors26. Overgrazing and degradation in land held in communal tenure creates a poverty trap where farmers on these lands already suffer greater losses from climatic extremes such as cold spells, storms and droughts than neighbouring commercial farmers. As such, the already-significant risks

24 Bourne, A., C. Donatti, S Holness, and G Midgley (2012). Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for the Namakwa District Municipality. 25 Bourne, A., C. Donatti, S Holness, and G Midgley (2012). Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for the Namakwa District Municipality. 26 Green Connection. (2008) A Survey of Current Climate Change Awareness amongst the Communities of the Succulent Karoo region.

of being a marginal farmer in this District are expected to be exacerbated by projected temperature increases, erratic rain events, and drought27. Water scarcity will be one of the first and greatest areas of impact from climate change in the Province, and this will be particularly true in the District. The main water source is the Orange River in the north, and ground water sources are limited. Additionally, wetland degradation for livestock grazing and agriculture further threaten long-term water security. The District VA indicates that habitat impacts resulting from climate change can impact the income vulnerability of households involved in ecotourism.

While there are no consistent records of past extreme events, the Namakwa District‟s 2010 Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) Strategy28 (which also formed a basis for the VA) identifies coastal storms, such as the one experienced at Port Nolloth in 2009, along with floods, strong winds and droughts as some of the greatest threats to the municipality. There is also a high risk of veld fires in the summer rainfall areas of the District which will further impact rangeland and livestock health.

Vulnerability Assessment In 2012 a Climate Change VA for the Namakwa District was undertaken by Conservation South Africa (CSA), with the support of the Namakwa District Municipality, for the same area29. The focus of the 2012 assessment was to identify priority areas for Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA) and develop an index of vulnerability for the Namakwa District. The 2012 assessment used socio-economic data from a disaster management survey conducted with all 52 settlements in the District to identify climate disaster prone areas and prioritise activities related to EbA.

To broaden the scope of the 2012 assessment beyond EbA, CSA began an intensive stakeholder engagement process in 2013. This began with nine workshops with local government – two at the district municipality level and seven at the local municipality level – based on the Let‟s Respond Toolkit30. These sessions were focused on integrating climate change risks and opportunities into municipal planning through strategic integration of the topic into the IDPs for each municipality.

Later in 2013 and in early 2014, in direct response to the requirements of the detailed design phase of the Community Adaptation SGF, CSA and South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) began to engage directly with affected community groups, local Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) and Community Based Organisations (CBOs), relevant government departments and research and development institutions active in the Namakwa District. This culminated in a VA for the Namakwa District, which can be found as Annex II.2. This stakeholder engagement has included two sessions: one in Cape Town at the Annual General Meeting of the Northern Cape Regional Network, a network of NGOs and CBOs working in the Northern Cape including the Namakwa District; and one in Springbok and attended by 61 representatives of 38 locally active institutions. In addition to the two meetings held in late 2013 and early 2014, many more organisations, institutions, research / implementation partners and community groups were contacted over the telephone and via email.

The VA, with the additional inputs provided in 2013 and 2014, resulted in the identification of the following priority risks for the Namakwa District: Reduced viability of agricultural livelihoods (including fisheries): Most (95%) land in the Namakwa District is actively utilised for agriculture, mostly small livestock farming (sheep and goats). A large percentage of the population is engaged in farming and directly dependent on related activities for their livelihoods. Agriculture is likely to be affected by drought, heat stress in plants and animals, and a reduction in water availability and water quality for livestock and crops. Increases in evaporation and evapotranspiration will decrease fodder production and grazing production for livestock, potentially resulting in reduced conception, birthing, and weaning rates, poor livestock condition, livestock mortality, and, ultimately, reduced viability of current farming practices. This could result in unemployment and reduced household income, ultimately reducing food security and the sustainability of current livelihood practices.

27 Namakwa District Municipality(2012). Approved Integrated Development Plan 2012-2016. 28 Du Plessis, A. (2010). Namakwa District Municipality: Disaster Risk Reduction Executive Summary Report. 29 Bourne A, Donatti C, Holness S, and Midgley G. 2012. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for the Namakwa District Municipality. Cape Town: Conservation South Africa. 30 (Department of Environmental Affairs, Department of Cooperative Governance, and the South African Local Government Association). 2012. Let’s Respond: A toolkit to integrating climate change risk and opportunities into municipal planning. Pretoria, South Africa.

Damage to infrastructure/human settlements: There are 52 rural human settlements in the Namakwa District. Typically human settlements are clustered around a water source, but are isolated. Human settlements are likely to be affected by heat stress in people (particularly the very young, elderly, and ill, as well as farm and mine labourers) and water stress both in terms of drinking water quality and availability. Additionally, human settlements, access roads, and irrigation infrastructure are vulnerable to flash-flooding after periods of droughts. Coastal settlements and infrastructure (notably fishing and diamond dredging facilities) may be increasingly at risk from storm surge, while inundation of coastal aquifers threatens fresh water supplies. Increased reliance on DRR services: The low density of people and isolation of settlements in the Namakwa District places a strain on municipal DRR services. However, an increase in frequency and intensity of climate extremes, particularly drought, will necessitate an increase in the provision of these services, focused on the agriculture sector and human settlements. Community-led DRR interventions can safe-guard livelihoods and infrastructure, thus reducing the stress on municipal services and increasing resilience to the impacts of climate variability and change. Degradation of ecological infrastructure31: Functioning ecosystems in the Namakwa District currently deliver valuable ecosystem services to rural, vulnerable communities, such as grazing areas for livestock and the provision of clean water for drinking and household use. However, this provision of ecosystem services is threatened by increasing aridity, coupled with over-utilisation of natural resources because of reduced food security and loss of household income. Investing in ecological infrastructure will facilitate community-based management, maintenance and potentially restoration of ecosystems functions and services that support climate resilient livelihoods.

These priority risks, together with the priority risks that were identified for Letaba and Giyani, were used as the basis to identify the Community Adaptation SGF Investment Windows, i.e. Climate Smart- Agriculture, Climate-Resilient Livelihoods and Climate-Proof Settlements.

As part of the VA process stakeholders also identified a number of possible climate change adaptation responses. These are outlined in Box 2 below.

Box 2: Adaptation interventions suggested by stakeholders for the Namakwa District.

Reduced viability of agricultural livelihoods: Introduction/increased use of heat-tolerant livestock. Construction of shade structures for livestock. Use of drought-resilient crops. Use of micro/drip-irrigation systems. Support to currently practiced, alternative livelihoods such as temperature controlled abalone farming.

Damage to infrastructure/human settlements: Rainwater harvesting at the household level. Grey water recycling systems. Insulation of houses to reduce impacts of extreme temperatures. Planting of drought-resilient trees around human settlements. Small-scale coastal protection infrastructure, such as gabions infrastructure.

Increased reliance on DRR services: Support to community-based fire management strategies. Small-scale early warning systems, particularly for drought.

Degradation of Ecological Infrastructure: Clearing of alien vegetation, particularly along waterways, to improve surface water flow for agricultural and household use. Wetland rehabilitation. Improved land/livestock management.

31 Ecological infrastructure refers to strategically planned and managed networks of natural lands, working landscapes and other open spaces that conserve ecosystem values and functions and provide associated benefits to society.

Investment Windows

The Community Adaptation SGF will invest in climate change adaptation interventions that fall within prioritised Investment Windows. These have been derived from the findings of the VAs undertaken in each of the project target areas, in combination with the downscaled climate analysis of the project target areas, as outlined above and in Figure 6. This process supported the identification of impacts and risks to sectors, based on stakeholder input and contextualisation of climate-driven changes.

Figure 6: The identification of the Investment Windows was based on climate projections and findings of the Mopani District and Namakwa District Vulnerability Assessments.

The process outlined in the figure above led to the identification of three Investment Windows, i.e. Climate-Smart Agriculture, Climate-Resilient Livelihoods and Climate-Proof Settlements, as shown in Figure 7 below. The Community Adaptation SGF will invest in climate change adaptation interventions that fall into these prioritised Investment Windows. All small grants projects will deliver concrete, tangible benefits to local communities, and may deliver cross-cutting benefits in more than one Investment Window.

Figure 7: Community Adaptation SGF Investment Windows.

Further detail on the Investment Windows is outlined in Section II.A below.

Project Objectives:

This Community Adaptation SGF will increase climate resilience in production landscapes and socio- economic systems in communities in two pilot district municipalities in South Africa, by working directly with local stakeholders and anticipated beneficiaries through a small granting mechanism.

The overall goal of the project is to ensure that vulnerable, rural communities in the project target areas have reduced vulnerability and increased resilience to the anticipated impacts of climate variability and change. The objective is to incorporate climate adaptation response strategies into local practices so that assets, livelihoods and ecosystem services are protected from climate induced risks associated with expected droughts, seasonal shifts and storm-related disaster events.

In addition to delivering direct and tangible benefits through the implementation of the small grant projects themselves, the Community Adaptation SGF will pilot and develop an understanding of small grant mechanism development and implementation in the context of climate finance, with a view to scaling up and replicating this model as appropriate. This approach responds directly to calls from civil society to bring the principle of „direct access‟ closer to vulnerable communities, thus empowering them to determine how climate finance will be used, and building institutional capacity for the implementation of adaptation efforts at the local level.

It is believed that one of the most important factors of success for the Community Adaptation SGF will be its processes of project identification, development, review and learning, and the processes that are put in place to build local capacity and support project implementation. These have been carefully addressed in the design of the project.

The Community Adaptation SGF itself will comprise three components as follows: Component 1: Small grants to vulnerable communities deliver tangible and sustainable benefits. Component 2: Local institutions empowered to identify and implement adaptation response measures. Component 3: Lessons learned facilitate future up-scaling and replication of small grant-financing approaches.

Project Components and Financing:

Project Amount Expected Concrete Outputs Expected Outcomes Components (USD)

Component 1: Small 1.1 Adaptation assets strengthened through Small grants support 1,542,000 grants to vulnerable the implementation of at least 12 small concrete adaptation communities deliver grants (approximately USD 100,000 each) measures that strengthen tangible and are disbursed to at least 12 local institutions livelihood strategies, sustainable benefits in the Mopani and Namakwa District adaptive capacity, Municipalities infrastructure and assets in (Small Grants) vulnerable communities in The small grants will support grant recipients two district municipalities in to implement adaptation responses in: South Africa. Climate-Smart Agriculture (such as the construction of livestock shelters, introduction and implementation of mulching techniques, introduction of agroforestry and planting of locally appropriate drought resistant crops) Climate-Resilient Livelihoods (such as the development of trader stalls that protect people and products from the heat, installation of cooling facilities for food traders, provision of shade clothes for vegetable production at kindergartens and the introduction of savings groups) Climate-Proof Settlements (such as improving housing structures, construction of small-scale coastal storm protection, improving the structure of bridges and restoring degraded wetlands)

Component 2: 2.1 At least 12 local institutions in the Mopani Small grant recipients and 325,000 Local institutions and Namakwa Districts are supported to associated institutions are empowered to develop small grant projects for local-level empowered to identify identify and adaptation response measures to implement adaptation climate induced- response measures 2.2 At least 12 local institutions in the Mopani vulnerabilities, and and Namakwa Districts are supported to implement relevant climate (Institutional implement integrated climate adaptation change adaptation Capacity) responses projects. Component 3: 3.1 Training opportunities are provided for A methodology for 189,000 Lessons learned small grant recipients enhancing direct access to facilitate future climate finance is scaling up and 3.2 Local networks for reducing climate developed, based on replication of small change vulnerability and risk reduction are lessons learned, providing grant financing developed, expanded and strengthened recommendations for approaches scaling up and replicating 3.3 Case studies and policy in South Africa and (Lessons Learned) recommendations are developed for beyond. reflecting on, replicating and scaling up small grant financing approaches Project Execution cost 195,320 Total Project Cost 2,251,320 Project Management Fee charged by the Implementing Entity 191,362 Amount of Financing Requested 2,442,682

Projected Calendar:

This will be a five year project, with 6 months for setting up the project, including establishing local level governance structures and building capacity for implementation, and 6 months for closing off, including reflection and participatory review.

Milestones Expected Dates

Start of Project/Programme Implementation April 2015 Mid-term Review (if planned) April 2017 Project/Programme Closing April 2019 Terminal Evaluation January 2019

PART II: PROJECT JUSTIFICATION

A. Describe the project components, particularly focusing on the concrete adaptation activities of the project, and how these activities contribute to climate resilience.

Through Component 1, the Community Adaptation SGF will provide climate finance directly to targeted beneficiaries and in so doing will invest in locally relevant and integrated community-level responses to climate variability and change. The integration of scientific and local knowledge is an area of particular interest. Responses will be identified and implemented by the beneficiaries themselves, who will have been involved in the conceptualisation of the proposed projects and who are fully involved as project partners in the small grant project implementation and Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) processes.

Among other things32, all small grant projects will:

32 See Component 2 description in Section II.A for a full list of project criteria.

deliver tangible, measurable benefits that reduce the vulnerabilities of local communities to existing and anticipated impacts of climate change; directly involve beneficiaries in the identification and conceptualisation of projects; show how women are included in project management structures and as project beneficiaries; and make provision for small grant recipients to participate in capacity building, learning and reflection activities that facilitate the sharing of knowledge on best practices from the local to the national level.

It is believed that one of the most important success factors for the Community Adaptation SGF will be its processes of project identification, development, review and learning along with the processes that are to be put in place to build local capacity and support project implementation. These will be supported through Components 2 and 3 of the project and are described below.

In addition to delivering direct and tangible benefits through the small grant projects themselves, the Community Adaptation SGF will pilot and develop an understanding of small grant mechanism development and implementation in the context of climate finance, with a view to scaling up and replicating this model as appropriate. This approach responds directly to calls from civil society in South Africa to bring the principle of „direct access‟ closer to vulnerable communities, thus empowering them to determine how climate finance will be used, and to build the institutional capacity for the implementation of adaptation efforts at the local level

Component 1: Small grants to vulnerable communities deliver tangible and sustainable benefits (USD 1,542,000).

This component will support the implementation of adaptation responses by vulnerable communities in the Mopani and Namakwa District Municipalities. This will be achieved through a suite of interventions that ultimately provide climate finance for at least 12 small grants in the Mopani and Namakwa District Municipalities. These small grants will be in the order of USD 100,000 each. A total of USD 1,542,000 has been allocated for these small grants. The grants may be phased and will be disbursed in tranches to ensure a sound implementation process and effective integration of project- level M&E processes.

The Community Adaptation SGF will invest in climate change adaptation interventions that fall into the following prioritised Investment Windows: Climate-Smart Agriculture; Climate-Resilient Livelihoods; and Climate-Proof Infrastructure.

These Investment Windows are elaborated in Box 3 below.

As described above, the Investment Windows were identified in response to local-level climate change projections and the VAs that were undertaken in the two project target areas. All small grant projects will deliver concrete, tangible benefits to local communities, and may deliver cross-cutting benefits in more than one Investment Window.

Box 3: The Community Adaptation SGF Investment Windows.

Climate-Smart Agriculture33 Based on the climate change risks determined by the two VAs, as outlined above, Climate-Smart Agriculture has been identified as one of the three Investment Windows for the Community Adaptation SGF. Projects that fall within this Investment Window will address the direct or indirect impacts of climate change on agricultural production, and could target livestock and/or crop production. Climate-Smart Agriculture projects will focus on responses that feature shifts towards new resilient farming techniques, as well as technological improvements. This could include the use of drought-resilient crops in the face of projected drying, tree planting or the construction of shade structures and more drinking troughs for livestock in the face of increasing temperatures. The implementation of no-regrets farming techniques, practices that address climate projections yet that have

33 Note that while the FAO definition of Climate-Smart Agriculture comprises sustainably increasing agricultural productivity and incomes, adaptation to climate change and climate change mitigation, Small grants projects that fall within this Investment Window will focus on climate change adaptation. If small grants projects also speak to sustainability and mitigation these will be co-benefits, yet not prerequisites.

general benefits whatever the extent of future climate change, is preferential. This could for example be the introduction of mulching to retain soil moisture in the face of warming and drying, which at the same time works to improve the general fertility and health of the soil.

Development of Climate-Smart Agriculture projects can entail the incorporation of cross-sectoral aspects such as ecological infrastructure, as healthy, functioning ecosystems that play an important role in preventing erosion, attenuating floods and ensuring that there is sufficient water and grazing. The issue of water-security can also be addressed in the agricultural projects, as ensuring sufficient yet sustainable water availability in the face of increasing temperatures and shifting rainfall patterns is key in order to create resilient farming systems. Climate- Smart Agriculture projects can also incorporate DRR components, through precautionary measures and plans that reduce the impacts of projected shifts in both slow (i.e. drought) and rapid (i.e. thunderstorms) onset extreme events on agriculture.

As for all the small grants projects, Climate-Smart Agriculture projects need to focus on ensuring tangible benefits for the most vulnerable communities.

Climate-Resilient Livelihoods Based on the climate change risks determined by the VAs as outlined above, Climate-Resilient Livelihoods has been identified as one of the three Investment Windows for the Community Adaptation SGF. In this context “livelihoods” is defined as the capabilities, assets and activities required to make a living34. Assets comprise a wide array of aspects that people require for their livelihoods, including: human assets (skills, knowledge, health, ability to work, etc.); natural assets (land, water, wildlife, etc.); financial assets (financial resources that people use, i.e. savings, credit, pensions); physical assets (transport, energy, etc.); and social assets (networks, groups, access to institutions).

Climate-Resilient Livelihoods projects will work to increase the resilience of income generating activities and associated assets in the face of a changing climate. This could include aspects that affect people directly, such as heat stress experienced by traders without access to proper stalls, or aspects that affect the activity, for example increasing water requirements for brick making as increasing temperatures leading to drying of the mud used for brick making.

The Climate-Resilient Livelihoods Investment Window provides an opportunity to reflect on climate change impacts on locally specific livelihoods, and aims to foster innovative approaches for responding to these. Importantly, projects must be able to show how the interventions directly address aspects of an income generating activity or associated livelihoods asset that is set to be impacted by projected climate change.

As for all the small grants projects, Climate-Resilient Livelihoods projects need to benefit a wide group of people.

Climate-Proof Settlements Based on the climate change risks that came out of the two Vulnerability Assessments, as outlined above, Climate-Proof Settlements has been identified as one of the three Investment Windows for the Community Adaptation SGF project. This Investment Window incorporates projects that address the climate change vulnerability of settlements, the people living in those settlements and the infrastructure on which they depend. This could include ensuring that infrastructure can deliver access to sufficient clean drinking water in the face of increased risk of storm surge and subsequent inundation of coastal aquifers. Additionally, it could include ensuring that community members are able to commute to school, to work or to the economic hub as normal if projections indicate an increase in the intensity of heavy rainfall events with which local infrastructure cannot cope.

Development of Climate-Proof Settlements also addresses the need for DRR, as climate change in some areas might mean an increase in the frequency and intensity of climate extremes. DRR projects, preferably community- led, that can safe-guard lives, livelihoods and infrastructure, will thus be included. Depending on the climate change projections for the area, such projects could prepare for extremes ranging from droughts to thunderstorms. Ecological infrastructure can in some cases play a role in buffering extremes, and as such be incorporated as part of climate-proof settlement projects. Such interventions need to be linked to projected climate change related impacts on settlements being reduced or prevented as a result of healthy and functioning ecosystems. This could include the restoration or rehabilitation of a wetland that can be shown to provide flood attenuation for a community at risk from flooding due to an increase in the intensity of heavy rainfall events.

An indicative list of project ideas that emerged from the participatory VAs has been developed to illustrate the scope of these interventions (see Box 4). This indicative list will be refined further during the project concept development processes, as described below. Small grant projects will be identified in partnership with local stakeholders/beneficiaries and will be designed to respond directly

34 Chambers, R. and Conway, G.R. (1992) „Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the 21st Century‟, Discussion Paper 296. Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies.

to local conditions, needs and vulnerabilities, and to meet the agreed criteria of the Community Adaptation SGF. All small grant projects will need to demonstrate a clear climate change adaptation focus, and tangible additional adaptation benefits.

Box 4: Indicative projects that will be supported through the Community Adaptation SGF.

Examples of adaptation responses for Climate-Smart Agriculture projects: Construction of livestock shelters, in response to increasing temperatures and subsequent heat stress in sheep. Introduction and implementation of mulching techniques among a group of farmers, as a way to contain soil moisture in response to increasing temperatures and subsequent increase in evaporation and/or in response to decrease in average rainfall. Introduction of agroforestry in order to stabilise the soils and reduce nutrient and soil runoff in response to increase in the intensity of heavy rainfall events. Planting of locally appropriate drought resistant crops in response to increasing temperatures and decrease in average rainfall.

Examples of adaptation responses for Climate-Resilient Livelihoods projects: Development of market facilities for a group of traders, providing traders and customers with protection from the heat and thus from heat stress, fatigue and dehydration, in response to increasing temperatures. Installation of cooling facilities for food traders, preventing food from going off quicker due to increasing temperatures, and thus preventing economic loss by traders and the sales and consumption of foods that makes people sick. Provision of shade cloth to protect vegetable production at kindergartens that grow their own food for the children, in response to increasing temperatures. The introduction of savings groups aimed at creating a financial buffer for households at risk from for example impacts from increase in the intensity of extreme rainfall events.

Examples of adaptation responses for Climate-Proof Settlements projects: Improvements to housing structures that become very warm during warm days, in response to increase in temperatures. Small-scale coastal storm protection, in response to increase in the frequency and intensity of storm surges. Improving the structure of a bridge over which people have to cross on a regular basis to get to school or to work and which is regularly damaged or overflows due to flooding, in response to increase in the intensity of heavy rainfall events. The restoration of a degraded wetland upstream from a community which is regularly affected by flooding, in response to increase in the intensity of heavy rainfall events.

Component 2: Local institutions empowered to identify and implement adaptation response measures (USD 325,000).

The Community Adaptation SGF recognises, and is indeed designed to respond to, weak institutional capacities for project identification and implementation in the project target areas, and associated consequences for reducing climate induced risk and vulnerabilities. Under this component, it will focus on supporting local institutions to identify, develop and implement small grant projects in the context of climate change adaptation at all stages of the project cycle.

An innovation of the Community Adaptation SGF is to place Facilitating Agencies alongside small grant recipients in the project target areas. The Facilitating Agencies will work closely with small grant recipients and support sound small grant project identification, development and implementation processes including local-level project administration, reporting and financial management. These processes will be guided by a set of criteria that ensure that small grant projects clearly respond to experienced or anticipated climate induced stresses, and meet the objectives of the Community Adaptation SGF, the NIE and the Adaptation Fund (AF).

Small Grant Project Screening and Review

The project development and review mechanisms of the Community Adaptation SGF will be guided by criteria that ensure that small grant projects clearly respond to experienced or anticipated climate induced stresses, and meet the objectives of the Community Adaptation SGF, the NIE and the AF. As part of this, the screening processes will also ensure that all small grant projects meet the requirements for a project with no significant risks in terms of the AF Environmental and Social Policy (ESP), or a project with minor risks that can be mitigated.

This Community Adaptation SGF has been designed to pilot an enhanced direct access mechanism, and in order to be able to retain a focus on this, it has been agreed that small grant projects with significant AF ESP risks, or risks that cannot be mitigated, will be excluded. This position is further informed by the relatively small size of the grants, which would make detailed specialist investigations into the identification and mitigation of significant risks unaffordable.

It should be noted that the Community Adaptation SGF will not fund: Small grant projects that do not align with all of the prescribed criteria. Small grant projects that do not result in tangible, measurable adaptation benefits for vulnerable communities – this includes any project that is only awareness- and/or education-based, only relevant to planning or research, without feeding into an implemented activity. Small grant projects that require a Basic Assessment or full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) as per the national EIA regulations (see Section II.E), due to administrative costs and potential delays. Small grant projects that do not show additionality. Small grant projects that pose significant or unmitigatable risks in terms of the AF ESP.

Institutions (small grant recipients) and small grant projects will be carefully screened against a set of criteria that were developed as part of the process to conceptualise the Community Adaptation SGF.

The screening process will have three steps, as follows: screening of the small grant recipients against a set of predetermined criteria; screening of the small grant projects, to ensure they align with the objectives of the Community Adaptation SGF; and screening of the small grant projects against the criteria of the AF ESP to ensure that they are no significant project risks, or that any minor risks that can be mitigated.

Small grant projects that do not meet the requirement for a project with no significant risks in terms of the AF ESP, or a project with minor risks that can be mitigated, will be excluded.

The criteria were designed to ensure consistency with the aspirations of project target communities, alignment with the NIE Investment Framework and compliance with the standards and criteria of the AF, including the ESP. They were designed in consultation with project stakeholders as part of the Community Adaptation SGF detailed design phase.

A participatory and inclusive approach is essential to sustainability. It creates a sense of ownership and buy-in, involves all sectors of the community, enables integration with on-going activities, provides access to local knowledge and ideas, facilitates consensus and increases the credibility of the project. Although participatory processes are not uncommon in South Africa, there is sometimes a tendency for project management to become expert-driven and top-down in its approach. The Community Adaptation SGF will actively promote a participatory, gender-sensitive approach. To foster the participation of women in project activities, gender concerns have been factored into project criteria, indicators and targets. These will ensure that there is equitable representation of women as project beneficiaries, in training and capacity-building programmes, and in project decision-making structures at all levels.

Criteria for small grant recipients: Small grant recipients must be South African institutions with proven relevant implementation experience. Preference will be given to small grant recipients that are legal entities and have the capacity to receive, manage and audit project funds. Preference will be given to small grant projects led by civil society organisations, and civil society organisations must be represented on management structures of all small grant projects. Organisations will need to show how women are included in their project management structures. Small grant recipients must have a sound track record of good governance, delivery of grant commitments and financial management. Preference will be given to grant recipients with a clean audit record. Small grant recipients must have previous positive experience receiving a combination of funds in the order of USD 25,000 (R 250,000) per year over a period of at least two years.

Small grant recipients are encouraged to develop implementation partnerships that augment or share their current capacity. Preference will be given to small grant recipients that have established long-standing relationships with communities in the Namakwa or Mopani District Municipality. Small grant recipients must have proof of land or asset ownership, and/or land tenure or permission to carry out proposed activity, as relevant. Small grant recipients must have a clear mandate from project community beneficiaries to work in the project target areas on the identified project activities. Small grant recipients must demonstrate willingness to participate in learning and knowledge development and dissemination processes. Small grant recipients must not be receiving funds from other sources for the proposed small grant project activities. Small grant recipients may only receive one small grant from the Community Adaptation SGF.

Note: Organisations may wish to collaborate in order to meet organisational eligibility requirements. Organisations will be required to furnish documentation to verify recipient eligibility criteria during the application process.

Criteria for small grant projects: The Community Adaptation SGF will fund small grant projects that address a clear climate change related threat and have a clear and demonstrable link to tangible, measurable and visible adaptation benefits for vulnerable communities. Small grant projects must clearly demonstrate that they respond to a particular climate change risk that is relevant for the project area, as identified in the project VAs (see Annex II). Small grant projects must support adaptive interventions that clearly respond to current or anticipated local vulnerabilities that deliver concrete, tangible and measurable climate change adaptation benefits. Small grant projects must support concrete actions and deliver tangible results that increase resilience to climate variability and change. Small grant projects must be able to show no significant risks in terms of the AF ESP, or minor risks that can be mitigated. Small grant projects must align with the Community Adaptation SGF Investment Windows, as described above in Box 3. Small grant projects must be located within the broader development context (provide economic, social, and/or environmental co-benefits) of the area. Small grant projects must be supported by anticipated beneficiaries and local community stakeholders. Where relevant, small grant projects are required to demonstrate sustainable land tenure arrangements. Small grant projects must support vulnerable, local communities and especially women. Small grant projects will beneficiate community groups rather than single individuals i.e. at least 50 direct community beneficiaries per project. Small grant projects must include learning outcomes and inform ways to scale up and replicate approaches in other communities. Small grant projects must clearly demonstrate how success will be measured and must have clear indicators. Small grant projects must be replicable and/or scalable. Small grant projects must be sustainable after the Community Adaptation SGF funding ends. Small grant projects must be cost-effective. Small grant projects must be located in rural/semi-rural areas. Small grant projects must be implemented in the Namakwa District Municipality, or Greater Giyani or Greater Letaba in the Mopani District Municipality.

Environmental and social risk screening All small grant projects will be screened against the AF ESP, and potential small grant recipients will be required to complete Table 1. Any small grant project that does not meet the requirements for a project with no significant risks in terms of the AF ESP, or minor risks that can be mitigated, will be excluded.

Particular attention will be given to ensuring that small grant projects do not impact adversely on any priority biodiversity areas or ecosystem support areas, and that there are no negative impacts on local communities, including vulnerable groups and indigenous people.

As mentioned above, small grant projects that require a Basic Assessment or full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) as per the national EIA regulations (see Section II.E) will not be supported, due to administrative costs and potential delays. Activities that are listed in the EIA regulations will only be approved where exemptions can be provided. These include riparian zone activities (such as rehabilitation or restoration of wetlands, rehabilitation and restoration of river banks including erosion control and the construction of low river crossings) and littoral zone activities (such as small-scale coastal storm protection structures). Precedents are in place for the provision of exemptions for these activities, and such exemptions will need to be provided in writing before any grants that entail these proposed activities are awarded.

Table 1: Checklist of environmental and social principles.

Law Access and Equity Marginalised and

Vulnerable Groups Human Rights Gender Equity and Women’s Empowerment Core Labour Rights Indigenous Peoples Involuntary

Resettlement Protection of Natural

Habitats Conservation of

Biological Diversity Climate Change Pollution Prevention and Resource Efficiency Public Health Physical and Cultural

Heritage Lands and Soil

Conservation

The Small Grant Making Process

The process to support prospective small grant recipients to identify project concepts, and to develop these ideas into applications that could be approved and ultimately contracted by the Community Adaptation SGF, has five stages (see Figure 8). These are summarized in Table 2 and described below. The roles and responsibilities that have been assigned to the various project partners throughout the small grant making process are set out in the Institutional Arrangements section (see Section III.A). Draft project concept and detailed project proposal application forms have been developed by the EE, and will be finalized in a consultative process leading up to the Inception Workshop.

opportunities will be created throughout the lifetime of the project. These will be informed by the outcomes of capacity building needs analyses that will be conducted by the Facilitating Agencies, with the support of the EE, on an on-going basis.

Figure 8: The five Community Adaptation SGF project stages, illustrating where small grant projects will be screened for potential social and environmental risks in accordance with the AF ESP.

Table 2: Indicative steps associated with the five stages of the Community Adaptation SGF Small Grant Making Process. The responsible agent(s) is indicated in brackets after each indicative step.

Local Reference Groups) Acknowledge receipt (EE) Review completed detailed project proposals – technical and due diligence (Experts, EE) Screen detailed project proposal against AF ESP (Facilitating Agencies, EE, NIE) Table recommendations at PSC meeting (EE) Notify Facilitating Agencies of outcomes (EE) Notify prospective small grant recipients of outcomes (Facilitating Agencies) (detailed project proposal approved; detailed project proposal requires additional work; detailed project proposal not approved Stage 3: Contracting Preparation of draft terms and conditions (EE) Negotiation and finalization of draft legal documents (EE, Facilitating Agencies, small grant recipient) Signature of legal documents Award small grant Stage 4: Small grant project becomes effective Implementation, Transfer of first installment to small grant recipient according to contract Monitoring and disbursement schedule (EE) Reporting Quarterly reporting (Small grant recipient) Quarterly site visits to each project by Facilitating Agencies (Facilitating Agencies) Quarterly feedback to EE and PSC (Facilitating Agencies) Annual visits to small grant project areas by EE Periodic training and capacity building events (Facilitating Agencies, consultants) Ongoing participation in knowledge and leaning activities (Small grant recipient) Participation in Mid-term review – led by external independent consultants, includes Local Reference Groups and PSC (EE, Facilitating Agencies, small grant recipients) Participation in Terminal review – led by external independent consultants, includes Local Reference Groups and PSC (EE, Facilitating Agencies, small grant recipients) Stage 5: Closure Submit final financial and performance reports Submit small grant project sustainability plan Participation in close out event

Stage 1: From an idea to a project concept In this first stage, prospective small grant recipients will be required to submit short project concepts outlining their proposed adaptation activities to the Facilitating Agencies.

Central to the approach will be processes to empower communities to identify best practice adaptation responses themselves, and in so doing to locate these in local socio-economic and institutional contexts that will see that these are integrated in on-going livelihood and development practices. Related to this will be the intention to identify responses that are synergistic and multi- sectoral so that, for example, agriculture and ecological infrastructure benefits, or built environment and health benefits, are derived simultaneously.

In support of this stage, the Facilitating Agencies will issue a call for project concepts. This call will use appropriate local communication channels such as local radio stations and community newspapers. The call will be supported by briefing sessions that will be convened in each of the project target areas. These sessions will provide an opportunity for potential small grant recipients, including members of local communities, to meet the Facilitating Agencies, be exposed to the VAs and response strategies for their regions, learn more about the small granting opportunity and to obtain some initial support to develop appropriate local level responses within these frameworks and input around their project ideas. These sessions will form a unique opportunity to integrate scientific and local knowledge, and to develop a base of proposed responses from which small grant projects can be identified and developed.

The capacity building and project development process has been designed to support local level adaptation responses that are identified by local community members themselves. Small grant recipients will be local institutions who are from or who represent these local communities and several

screening criteria have been specifically designed to ensure local level empowerment and beneficiation.

Project concepts will be screened by the Facilitating Agencies, with the support of Local Reference Groups, against the three sets of review criteria, as described above in the Small Grant Project Screening and Review section.

These criteria will be made known to applicants before they apply. This will empower stakeholders and give the process the transparency and local grounding that will be important for project success and sustainability.

During the Community Adaptation SGF inception phase, the NIE will engage directly with the EE and Facilitating Agencies on operating procedures that will apply to the management of the SGF, and that will be necessary to ensure compliance with SANBI and AF policies and procedures. Particular focus will be placed on the AF ESP, and a dedicated capacity building session will help to ensure that both the EE and Facilitating Agencies are able to competently screen small grant project ideas, concepts and proposals for environmental and social risks, and to detect these in future project monitoring, evaluation and reporting processes.

The recommendations of this screening process will be submitted to the EE, who will table them at a PSC meeting for a final decision. Project concepts that meet the specified criteria and are approved by the PSC will be entered into Stage 2. This conditional approval will allow the small grant projects to enter Stage 2, and to qualify for capacity building and project development support. This conditional approval will not entail the disbursement of funds to small grant recipients. Where such a need arises, and as determined by the Facilitating Agencies and EE, direct travel costs associated with potential small grant recipients attending capacity building events may be covered.

Project development assistance will be offered to potential small grant recipients whose project concepts are believed to have merit, but do not quite meet the Community Adaptation SGF criteria. Such potential small grant recipients will be afforded another opportunity to submit their revised project concepts, possibly at the time of the next call for project concepts.

The call for proposals will be issued on a six-monthly basis until such time as all project funds are allocated and all small grant recipients contracted. It is envisaged that two to three calls will be needed.

Stage 2: From an approved project concept to a detailed project proposal For all approved project concepts, the Facilitating Agencies will support prospective small grant recipients to further develop and refine the project concepts into detailed project proposals that meet the criteria and requirements of the Community Adaptation SGF. As part of this process, the Facilitating Agencies will invite input from local experts who will work alongside prospective small grant recipients to refine their detailed project proposals. This will include the incorporation of relevant material such as the VAs for each area and a review of the environmental and social safeguards to make sure that detailed project proposals meet the requirements for a project with no significant risks in terms of the AF ESP, or a project with minor risks that can be mitigated. Specialist safeguard expertise has been provided for in the budget and will be available if necessary.

Prospective small grant recipients will submit detailed project proposals to the EE via the Facilitating Agencies with a letter of endorsement from the Local Reference Groups. The EE will note the submission of the documentation, review it for completeness, and acknowledge receipt.

Detailed project proposals will then be reviewed by three reviewers, one of which will be the EE. The other two will be selected on the basis of their technical expertise in the project content area. Reviewers will evaluate detailed project proposals against the agreed project and institutional criteria.

The Facilitating Agency will also undertake a comprehensive screening of the detailed project proposals against the AF ESP for a second time, to ensure that no additional issues that could pose risks have emerged during the detailed design process. If any such minor risks have emerged, the potential small grant recipients will need to include a mitigation plan in the detailed project proposals.

The EE will review this assessment, and the NIE will provide oversight over this aspect of the process to ensure overall compliance with the AF ESP.

The EE will then compile the reviewers‟ comments into an integrated review, and make recommendations to the PSC as to whether to approve, not to approve or call for additional work on the detailed project proposal. All reviews – possibly with the reviewer names removed – will be made available to proponents35.

The PSC will then decide whether to approve the detailed project proposal, reject it, or refer it back to the prospective small grant recipients for further modifications. The record of the PSC meeting will capture the PSC‟s recommendations and the reasoning behind the decision. In the cases of conditional approval, the meeting record would detail the conditions that need to be met for approval.

The EE will notify prospective small grant recipients and the Facilitating Agencies of the recommendations of the PSC. Applications that are approved will enter the contracting stage. Projects that are referred back to proponents for further modification will have an opportunity to resubmit during the next call for proposals.

Stage 3: Contracting Once approved by the PSC, the EE will prepare and enter into contracts with small grant recipients.

The legal agreements between the EE and the small grant recipients will be negotiated and finalized based on the nature of the activity and of the anticipated funding flows. This process will include internal processing as well as compliance and due diligence screening. The agreements will contain all relevant details regarding the terms and conditions of the Community Adaptation SGF financing and may include terms and conditions applicable to the relationship between the EE, Facilitating Agencies and the small grant recipient.

Contracts will specify the annual project work plan and associated budgets, deliverables and disbursement schedules. They will also specify monitoring, evaluation and reporting requirements. Baselines will need to be established within the first three months of small grant project inception. When required, the Facilitating Agencies will assist with this process.

This stage will conclude with the signing of legal agreements between the EE and the small grant recipient and the payment of the first installment into the small grant recipient‟s bank account.

Stage 4: Implementation, monitoring and reporting Small grant recipients will be expected to implement their small grant projects according to the schedules and deliverables that are set out in their contracts. The Facilitating Agencies will support small grant recipients in this process by visiting each project at least once each quarter, and supporting reporting and monitoring processes. The Facilitating Agencies will be responsible for advising the EE on small grant recipient project progress, making recommendations to the EE for the disbursement of funds and in the event of any requests for deviations from the agreed project plan. Particular attention will be given to the monitoring and mitigation of unanticipated environmental and social risks during the: i) Facilitating Agency quarterly site visits to all project sites; ii) six-monthly progress reports submitted by small grant recipients to the Facilitating Agencies; and iii) six-monthly performance reports (for the overall Community Adaptation SGF) submitted by the Facilitating Agencies to the EE, for submission to the NIE.

Facilitating Agencies will report any unintended risks that emerge to the PSC via the EE, together with a proposed risk management plan that shows how these risks will be mitigated. The PSC may propose the redirection of project funds to risk management activities, or the withholding of the next tranche of payment until satisfactory risk management actions are determined and agreed.

The EE will undertake the necessary internal procedures to validate and complete the contracted payments. Any requests to deviate from the disbursement schedule agreed in small grant recipient contracts will need to be approved by the PSC and provided in writing.

35 This review process is based on a previous review process that was successfully implemented for the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund‟s investment in the Cape Floristic Region and Succulent Karoo hotspots between 2004 and 2009.

In addition to the quarterly site visits and learning opportunities, small grant recipients will be engaged in the Community Adaptation SGF Mid-term and Terminal evaluations conducted by external reviewers. The Facilitating Agencies will support processes for small grant recipients to be meaningfully engaged by the external M&E consultants during these evaluations.

Throughout the Community Adaptation SGF, opportunities will be created for small grant recipients to meet and share lessons and experiences with each other, and with other local and national stakeholders. Should the opportunity arise, small grant recipients may also be requested to share their experience with the international community. In support of this, annual small grant recipients meetings will be organised in each project target area. At least two of these will bring small grant recipients from the two project target areas together. Stakeholders from neighbouring and other districts and municipalities will be invited to these fora, with a view to extending the project benefits beyond the project target sites, to stimulate the scaling up of the Community Adaptation SGF.

Stage 5: Closure At project closure, all small grant recipients will be expected to submit final financial and performance reports which will need to include a project sustainability plan.

As part of the Terminal review, a close out event will also be convened for the project team and small grant recipients to reflect on the outcomes of the Community Adaptation SGF.

Table 3: Indicative work programme for Component 2.

Output Indicative Work Programme Issue call for project concepts Convene briefing sessions in each district Conduct capacity building workshops to support project concept development 2.1 At least 12 local institutions Screen project concepts in the Mopani and Namakwa Make recommendations to the EE Districts are supported to Convene project development work sessions with prospective small grant develop small grant projects for recipients and support detailed project proposal development local-level adaptation Obtain inputs from relevant experts to support project development Review detailed project proposals with input from experts, some of whom are drawn from government departments Provide feedback 2.2 At least 12 local institutions Provide on-going mentoring support (Facilitating Agencies) in the Mopani and Namakwa Visit all small grant recipients quarterly (Facilitating Agencies) Districts are supported to Support small grant recipients to complete quarterly financial and 6-monthly implement integrated climate progress reports and submit to the EE in appropriate formats. adaptation responses Provide feedback and on-going support to small grant recipients

Component 3: Lessons learned facilitate future scaling up and replication of small grant- financing approaches (USD 189,000).

This component responds to the need to provide relevant training to small grant recipients, and to reflect on implementation experience throughout the project cycle to maximize learning, implement adaptive management and capture recommendations for scaling up the Community Adaptation SGF to other sites in South Africa and beyond.

At the outset of the Community Adaptation SGF, and once small grant recipients are identified, training needs analyses will be conducted in each project target area, and at least ten appropriate training opportunities will be provided for small grant recipients. Such training is likely to include financial management, reporting and gender mainstreaming. Where feasible, training will be designed to target small grant recipients from both project target areas.

It is possible that training opportunities will be offered at the same time as the planned annual learning events to make use of the opportunity of having all the small grant recipients together.

The Community Adaptation SGF will support innovative learning processes, including independent learning processes that support small grant recipients to reflect on implementation successes and

challenges, and develop insights. All small grant recipients will be expected to participate in and contribute to the Community Adaptation SGF‟s knowledge management and capacity building processes. These processes will include: Regular interactions with small grant recipients to support reflection and adaptive management. Annual fora where small grant recipients and beneficiaries are supported to come together in each of the project target areas to share experiences, discuss climate change adaptation challenges and possible integrated adaptation strategies. Training events may be organised alongside these fora to capitalise on the opportunity of all small grant recipients being in the same place at the same time. Two fora over the lifetime of the project where all small grant recipients from both areas come together. Stakeholders from neighbouring and other districts and municipalities will be invited to these fora, with a view to extending the project benefits beyond the project target sites, to stimulate the scaling up of the Community Adaptation SGF. The creation of a social media platform for reflection and learning within and between districts.

In addition to several other points of engagement, municipal and other government officials will be invited to the Community Adaptation SGF‟s learning events to be exposed to the experiences of the small grant recipients. This will give inputs and support processes to link Community Adaptation SGF outcomes with Municipal IDPs and Spatial Development Frameworks (SDFs). To date, municipal officials in both districts have expressed a strong interest in the Community Adaptation SGF and in learning more about how local climate change adaptation responses can be integrated into their programmes of work. Municipal capacity building will also be supported through the nation DEA‟s programme of work to build climate change adaptation capacity through the implementation of the Let‟s Respond Toolkit (see Annex II.2).

Through the NIE and the National Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA), the outcomes of the Community Adaptation SGF will also be shared with South Africa‟s National Climate Change Committee (NCCC) and the Intergovernmental Committee for Climate Change (IGCCC).

Efforts will also be made to support small grant recipients and beneficiaries to personally share lessons with the international community – either via Skype or directly – to foster a greater understanding of local benefits, experiences and challenges.

Challenges and insights, including case studies that articulate how project beneficiaries are responding to climate change with the direct support from the AF, will be captured in relevant formats and targeted at particular stakeholders at community, national and international levels. These will be published and showcased through local established medial channels, such as community newspapers and radio, to optimize potential benefits/replication at the local level. These will aim to build community-level understanding of the potential impact of climate variability and change, and to support community members then to develop relevant adaptation responses at the local level

These insights will support South Africa‟s national learning about optimal mechanisms to finance local climate adaptation efforts in a more direct way than has been possible to date. Where relevant, policy recommendations will be developed to inform the on-going development of South Africa‟s climate finance instruments, with a view to creating a long-term small grant facility for supporting climate change adaptation in vulnerable communities. Alignment with South Africa‟s domestic Green Fund will be explored.

In order to facilitate the proposed process learning and reflection approach successfully, it will be important to document the Community Adaptation SGF process to ensure lessons learned inform the compilation of a methodology that identifies effective strategies and policy recommendations for scaling up and replication.

The development of case studies and policy recommendations for reflecting on, replicating and scaling up small grant financing approaches (Output 3.3), will be undertaken by independent parties so as to provide an objective and impartial view of project progress. Further, and noting the limited budget that is available for this and the desirability to have long-term independent qualitative learning processes that track project implementation, the EE and Project SC will endeavour to raise additional funding to complement the planned evaluations and the learning activities. In this regard, the NIE, EE

and Facilitating Agencies will engage tertiary institutions in this regard and explore the feasibility of this being the subject of post graduate study opportunity. The University of Limpopo, who may also serve on the Local Reference Group for Mopani, is ideally placed to support the Mopani District, and the ACDI at the University of Cape Town has already expressed interest in partnering with the Community Adaptation SGF partners and the NIE.

Table 4: Indicative work programme for Component 3.

Output Indicative Work Programme Undertake training needs assessments for each district, based on the needs 3.1 Training opportunities of the small grant recipients, and commission training provided for small grant Develop training materials and undertake training. Basic climate change recipients adaptation, gender and financial management training, are likely subject areas. Convene an annual forum for small grant recipients to share experiences Convene two fora over the project lifetime where Mopani and Namakwa small 3.2 Local networks for reducing grant recipients, as well as stakeholders from neighbouring and other districts climate change vulnerability and and municipalities, come together to share experiences. risk reduction developed, Create a social media platform for small grant recipients to share lessons and expanded and strengthened experiences and provide each other with support Conduct independent learning processes to reflect on implementation and develop insights Capture learnings and produce case studies on local-level best practice and 3.3 Case studies and policy challenges recommendations developed for Disseminate information on the adaptation actions supported through local reflecting on, replicating and and national media channels scaling up small grant financing Develop and present project outcomes and relevant policy recommendations approaches at local, national fora

B. Describe how the project provides economic, social and environmental benefits, with particular reference to the most vulnerable communities, and vulnerable groups within communities, including gender considerations. Describe how the project will avoid or mitigate negative impacts, in compliance with the Environmental and Social Policy of the Adaptation Fund.

Introduction

The two identified district municipalities are among the most vulnerable municipalities to climate variability and change in South Africa. The expected impacts will place additional stress on already vulnerable groups. Therefore, there is a need to deliver local-level benefits to vulnerable communities through the development and implementation of climate change adaptation projects. However, as confirmed by the VAs undertaken in each area, capacity to develop, implement and mainstream climate change adaptation projects, with resultant benefits, is low.

The Community Adaptation SGF will therefore capacitate at least 12 small grant recipients36 to develop project concepts and detailed project proposals, receive funding and implement small grant projects to generate adaptation benefits at the local level. These recipients will comprise local institutions/collaborations with: i) civil society organisations represented on the management structures of all small grant recipients; ii) civil society organisations leading at least 8 such small grant recipients; iii) women representation on the management structures of at least 10 of the small grant recipients; and iv) at least 8 small grant recipients having limited/no previous experience in the implementation of climate change adaptation projects. The institutional capacity developed within small grant recipients will enable the flow of benefits to vulnerable communities not only through the

36 A total of USD 1,542,000 has been set aside for small grants, and up to 16 grants may be supported, depending on the value of the grants.

Community Adaptation SGF, but potentially through other funding sources as well. This will result in a potential multiplier effect of economic, social and environmental benefits at the local level, within and beyond the 4 year implementation period. Furthermore, additional benefits that result from the capacity development provided through the Community Adaptation SGF will include: i) social cohesion and community building; ii) linkages between, and mainstreaming of climate change adaptation into existing and planned government and donor-funded development initiatives; iii) coordination of climate change adaptation funding and responses; iv) effective sharing of relevant information through the established learning/sharing networks; and v) a sustained climate change adaptation Community of Practice.

At the local level, the proposed innovative mechanism for direct access to climate change adaptation finance will provide economic, social and environmental benefits for vulnerable communities in the two project target areas. There will be at least 50 direct beneficiaries per each of the at least 12 projects, therefore a minimum of 600 direct, individual beneficiaries. The benefits will accrue indirectly to household members at least, resulting in a multiplier effect of 3.6 in Mopani and 4.2 in Namakwa (average number of members per household in 2007 in each district). Both municipalities have a high number of female headed households (Mopani 39.8% and Namakwa 36.6%), highlighting the need to beneficiate women through the project.

The anticipated economic, social and environmental benefits of the Community Adaptation SGF are described below, grouped into the Investment Windows. A single project may deliver benefits to a vulnerable community member or group in more than one window. The number of benefiting women and men indicated is the total for both Mopani and Namakwa Districts (i.e. not disaggregated by project target area). The benefits at this stage are anticipated, and can only be confirmed and quantified once the at least 12 projects under the Community Adaptation SGF have been selected through the processes described in Section II.A.

Economic benefits

Climate-Smart Agriculture Investment Window: Small grant projects in this window are likely to result in at least 150 women and at least 150 men with direct improved income security. This will be as a result of a range of agricultural interventions that improve agricultural yield (crop/livestock) by 30% from current farming areas. This target is based on lessons learned from other AF projects. Specific targets – in terms of increase in yield and associated economic benefits – will be established for each small grant project in the Climate-Smart Agriculture Investment Window. Indicative small grant projects that will increase agricultural yield and result in improved income security include: Planting of locally appropriate drought resistant crops in response to increasing temperatures and decrease in average rainfall. Construction of livestock shelters, in response to increasing temperatures and subsequent heat stress in sheep. Introduction and implementation of mulching techniques among a group of farmers, as a way to contain soil moisture in response to increasing temperatures and subsequent increase in evaporation and/or in response to decrease in average rainfall.

Climate-Resilient Livelihoods Investment Window: Small grant projects in this window are likely to result in at least 75 women and at least 75 men with improved income security. In Mopani, informal trading is an important source of revenue for many vulnerable community members. Small grant projects that increase the climate resilience of produce for sale by informal traders and of consumers will therefore be of great benefit. Specific targets regarding increases in revenue will be set per small grant project at the detailed project proposal phase. Indicative small grant projects that will improve income from relevant livelihoods include: Development of market facilities for groups of traders, providing traders and customers with protection from the heat and thus from heat stress, fatigue and dehydration, in response to increasing temperatures. Installation of cooling facilities for food traders, preventing food from spoiling due to increasing temperatures, and thus preventing economic loss by traders and the sale and consumption of food that makes people sick. Provision of shade cloth to protect vegetable production at kindergartens that grow their own food for the children, in response to increasing temperatures.

The introduction of savings groups aimed at creating a financial buffer for households at risk from, for example, impacts from increase in the intensity of extreme rainfall events.

Climate-Proof Settlements Investment Window: Small grant projects in this window are likely to result in economic benefits for at least 25 women and at least 25 men across the two project target areas. The anticipated increase in the intensity of climate-related disasters is likely to result in damage to household infrastructure. In remote, rural areas, the cost of repairing such damage often falls on local community members. Strengthening settlement infrastructure and assets and investing in ecological infrastructure projects, which inter alia limit downstream flooding from restored/maintained areas, can therefore reduce the amount of money required for repairs or replacement of assets, thereby resulting in economic benefits. Specific economic targets will be set per small grant project at the detailed project proposal phase. Indicative small grant projects that will improve income from relevant livelihoods include: Improved drainage systems, strengthening of houses, including the installation of lightening conductors where appropriate, to build resilience to an increase in the frequency and intensity of climate extremes, including heavy rainfall events. Alternative bridges to low-lying river crossings at points (where people have to cross on a regular basis to get to school or to work) that are vulnerable to flash flooding during and after heavy rainfall events. The restoration of a degraded wetland upstream from a community which is regularly affected by flooding, in response to increase in the intensity of heavy rainfall events. Planting of trees or erecting of structures to provide shade, reducing the stress of extreme temperatures with associated health risks which potentially limit income-generating activities.

Social benefits

Climate-Smart Agriculture Investment Window: Small grant projects in this window are likely to result in social benefits for at least 150 women and at least 150 men, who will have improved resilience to slow onset/sudden climate induced disasters. Improved food security from climate-smart farming techniques will result in nutritional and health benefits in direct as well as indirect beneficiaries. By shifting planting dates appropriately and diversifying crops, including using a range of crops those that are drought tolerant and those that are able to tolerate water-logging, agricultural areas will provide nutritional sustenance in spite of an increase in climate variability and change. Similarly, by building the resilience of livestock production and thereby safeguarding income, vulnerable farmers will increase food security, with associated social benefits. The list of indicative small grant projects that will realize social benefits under this window is similar to that shown in the Economic benefits section above.

Climate-Resilient Livelihoods Investment Window: Small grant projects in this window are likely to result in social benefits for at least 75 women and at least 75 men. Similar to the Climate-Smart Agriculture Investment Window, building income security of informal traders will have social benefits through improved food security (as a result of the availability of resources to purchase food). In addition, projects will result in health benefits of informal traders, who are at risk from increasing temperatures and associated health risks (see results of the Mopani VA in Section II.A and Annex II.1). The list of indicative small grant projects that will realize social benefits under this window is similar to that shown in the Economic benefits section above.

Climate-Proof Settlements Investment Window: Small grant projects in this window are likely to result in social benefits for at least 100 women and at least 100 men. Of these, it is anticipated that 25 men and 25 women will have improved water security, and 75 men and 75 women will have increased resilience to slow onset/sudden climate induced disasters. Improved water security has associated health benefits, including avoided dehydration. Strengthened houses and appropriate bridges over rivers prone to flash-flooding can reduce loss of life as a result of extreme climate events. Indicative small grant projects that will improve income from relevant livelihoods include: Installation of rain water facilities/equipment to build resilience to variability in annual rainfall. Improvements to housing structures that become very warm during warm days, in response to increase in temperatures. Small-scale coastal storm protection, in response to increase in the frequency and intensity of storm surges.

Improving the structure of a bridge over which people have to cross on a regular basis to get to school or to work and which is regularly damaged or overflows due to flooding, in response to increase in the intensity of heavy rainfall events.

Environmental benefits

Climate-Smart Agriculture Investment Window: Small grant projects in this window are likely to result in environmental benefits, including conservation of topsoil, more efficient use of water, and better linkages with surrounding ecosystem services. Climate-smart agricultural techniques and the planting of trees reduce exposure of soil surfaces to raindrop impact of high intensity winds, thereby preventing the removal of valuable topsoil from agricultural areas. This reduces the extent of farm land required, thereby conserving unconverted lands. In addition to the mulching techniques mentioned in the Economic benefits section above, indicative small grant projects with economic benefits include: Introduction of agroforestry in order to stabilise the soils and reduce nutrient and soil runoff in response to increase in the intensity of heavy rainfall events. Ecological infrastructure projects aimed at maintaining the flow of water for agricultural purposes. Ecological infrastructure and other rehabilitation and restoration projects aimed at storm and flood attenuation, with associated benefits for downstream farming activities.

Climate-Resilient Livelihoods Investment Window: Small grant projects in this window may reduce waste and pollution and reduce the pressure on natural resources. The 75 women and 75 men benefiting from relevant projects are likely to be less reliant on harvesting of natural resources, thereby preventing over-harvesting. Ecological infrastructure projects, located to complement this reduction in pressure will further enhance the environmental benefits.

Climate-Proof Settlements Investment Window: Small grant projects in this window will include those focused on the restoration/maintenance of ecological infrastructure including riparian areas and wetland, intended to reduce downstream flooding. These small grant projects will have co-benefits to the natural environment. These include maintenance of biodiversity, conservation of soils and vegetative cover, and prevention of erosion. Indicative small grant projects with anticipated environmental benefits under this window include: The restoration of a degraded wetland upstream from a community which is regularly affected by flooding, in response to increase in the intensity of heavy rainfall events.

These projects are anticipated to deliver the following tangible adaptation assets: livestock shelters; areas under improved soil management; areas under improved agroforestry; drought resistant crops; communal market facilities; cooling facilities for food traders; shelters for vegetable production; savings groups; houses with improved insulation; area with improved coastal storm protection; and improved river crossings; and areas of rehabilitated wetlands and riparian systems.

Targets for these tangible adaptation assets will be determined as small grant projects are approved, and finalised on submission of first NIE report to the AF at the end of Year 1. See Section III.E for further details.

Risks/negative impacts

No negative impacts are anticipated as a result of the implementation of the small grant projects under the Community Adaptation SGF. All small grant projects will be screened against the criteria of the AF ESP, and projects that do not meet the requirements of a project with no significant risks in terms of the AF ESP, or a project with minor risks that can be mitigated, will be excluded from the

selection process. See Section II.A (Small Grant Project Screening and Review) and Annex VI for further details.

C. Describe or provide an analysis of the cost-effectiveness of the proposed project.

It is believed that, in the context of adaptation finance, small grants are a cost-effective way to deliver direct benefits at the local level.

The Community Adaptation SGF proposes an innovative mechanism for directly beneficiating vulnerable communities and empowering them to identify and implement adaptation responses that buffer them against experienced and anticipated climate-induced stresses. Experience with small grant making in South Africa (e.g. Global Environment Facility Small Grants Programme (GEF-SGP), Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF), Small Grants Facility for Conservation and Development in the Succulent Karoo (SKEPPIES)) has shown that small grant making can be enormously successful in delivering tangible and relevant benefits to local stakeholders and beneficiaries.

This enhanced direct access approach is a direct response to South African stakeholders who called for a mechanism that empowered local communities to conceive and drive local adaptation responses directly. A single, large intervention would not permit this level of local ownership or design.

The Community Adaptation SGF will focus on pilot sites in the Mopani and Namakwa District Municipalities to demonstrate that direct access to climate finance, via a small grants facility, can impact positively on rural communities, and especially women. To date, local communities in the project target areas have had very limited access to climate finance and at the local level responses to extreme events and its associated impacts on settlements and livelihoods have been largely reactive.

The Community Adaptation SGF is designed to reduce the climate induced risk and vulnerabilities in the target communities by empowering community members to identify local level adaptation responses themselves, and directly access climate finance to address these. This approach will enable climate finance to flow directly to activities that will be implemented by vulnerable groups themselves, and will provide an important complementary adaptation response to higher level systemic responses (that are also needed).

It is recognized that the administrative costs of the Community Adaptation SGF will be proportionality higher than costs associated with a facility that allocates larger grants. Project support activities cost the same, despite whether or not they are for large or small projects. This may be compounded when the small grant recipients and beneficiaries are from local communities, have limited experience implementing climate change adaptation projects and, therefore, need greater assistance.

By way of example, South Africa‟s domestic Green Fund has a total budget of R 1.1 billion (±USD 110 million) of which R 600 million (±USD 60 million) has been allocated to fund 22 projects. 10% of the total allocated budget is earmarked for project management activities such as site visits, M&E, etc. The value of this 10% is R60 million (±USD 6 million); divided by 22 this gives an amount of ±USD 272,727 per project for this function. In the Community Adaptation SGF, an estimated USD 32,520 (USD 520,319, comprised of the Component 2 and EE fee budget, divided by 16) is allocated to project support activities. While we recognise that this is 25% of the component budget with the EE fee excluded, and just over 30% of the total project budget, the net values are significantly lower than those associated with the Green Fund. This is in spite of the anticipated level of support per small grant project that is expected to be higher due to the entry level of many of the anticipated small grant recipients and beneficiaries.

Experience has shown that, although administratively costly, small grants are often more effective at delivering tangible benefits that respond to direct needs of beneficiary communities, and can thus be sustained. Direct community involvement via community-based adaptation increases the chance of sustainability as community members have a sense of ownership of the projects and thus an incentive for sustainability.

Three different scenarios were considered for the Community Adaptation SGF project budget, namely: 75% for small grants (Option 1); 70% for small grants (Option 2); or 60% for small grants (Option 3). If Option 2 or 3 were chosen, then there would be a larger proportion of the total programme budget allocated to the administrative costs. However, the preferred scenario is Option 1, where the largest possible amount can flow directly to civil society organizations via small grants to deliver tangible and sustainable benefits for vulnerable communities.

Explanation of the selected approach – Economy, Efficiency and Effectiveness

Three key concepts can be used to measure the value for money throughout the project cycle, namely: economy, efficiency and effectiveness.

Economy relates to how cost-effectively financial, human or material resources are acquired and used in an intervention. Recently, the AF conducted a comparative analysis of a number of small grants programmes in order to investigate the administrative costs of operating programmes with multiple levels of execution. For the programmes investigated, it was found that on average 25-30% of the total programme budget was spent on administrative costs. It is not clear how this figure has been derived, and what elements of project management support are regarded as administrative functions vs. project support functions.

For the Community Adaptation SGF, only 9.5% will be spent on direct administrative costs. 75% of the component budget will be directly contracted to small grant recipients; 15.8 % of the component budget will be spent directly on supporting capacity building and the formulation of learning networks among small grant recipients, and 9% will be spent directly supporting small grant recipients to identify, design, implement and manage their projects.

Importantly, the Community Adaptation SGF will be implemented with the support of an EE that has small grant management systems in place and with the support of facilitating agencies that already have active work programmes and staff complements in the project target sites, and excellent relationships with local communities. This will enable the Community Adaptation SGF to be implemented through these existing structures, and will save costs in project set up.

Efficiency relates to how quickly, accurately, and sustainably outputs can lead to desired outcomes. Quality and approach are important in order to maximize value for money in this regard. During the detailed design phase of the Community Adaptation SGF, funds were strategically spent on local scale climate change analyses (see Annex I.2) for the two project target areas. Analyses were based on observed data and climate change projections and these were incorporated in the development of VAs for the two districts. Since engagement with local stakeholders aided in the development of the VAs, it was ensured that the climate change adaptation responses that will be funded by the Community Adaptation SGF are based on a sound understanding of local economic, social and environmental dynamics. This scientific rigor and “on-the-ground” approach has ensured the high quality necessary for cost-effectiveness of the project.

Although tiered governance (i.e. multiple levels of execution and implementation) and M&E is complicated and generally costly, the EE has designed a nested M&E framework at all levels of reporting. For example, Facilitating Agencies could report on financial status during regular site visits and these will therefore fit into the EE‟s M&E framework. Similarly, regular financial reporting conducted by the EE will feed in to their broader reporting procedures.

Another factor that makes this project efficient and cost-effective is that potential small grant recipients and small grant projects are screened and prioritized against specific selection criteria. These selection criteria will be used from the project concept (Stage 1) up until the detailed project proposal (Stage 2). Further, the Community Adaptation SGF will invest in climate change adaptation interventions that fall into prioritised Investment Windows (see Section II.A). These filters will ensure that investments are targeted appropriately.

Effectiveness relates to how successfully an intervention achieves its intended outcomes and subsequent impacts are realized. The Community Adaptation SGF has allocated ca. 75% of the total component budget to the small grant projects, with a further 25% being used for direct small grant recipients and beneficiary support. This ensures that a large proportion of the budget goes directly to

civil society organisations and therefore vulnerable communities. Since there are multiple levels of implementation and execution (i.e. the inclusion of Local Reference Groups, Facilitating Agencies, EE, technical expert support and the NIE), there is „role clarity‟ which allows for effectiveness in implementing access to adaptation finance at the local level. From previous experience, both the SKEPPIES and GEF-SGP provided a high level of support and mentorship (via full time staff members), and this resulted in a high level of sustainability of the various projects. This approach is cost-effective since a high level of support equates to a higher possibility of future sustainability. The standard success rate for small businesses post project completion is ca. 20% and in SKEPPIES, for example, 23 out of the 54 small businesses were sustainable, equating to a high success rate of ca. 42%. The Community Adaptation SGF will use a similar model to the SKEPPIES and GEF-SGP projects. The Community Adaptation SGF will provide a high level of support, which may be expensive, but is cost-effective in terms of the benefits realized.

Community-based intervention can be interpreted in four different ways, namely: community as a setting, target, resource and/or agent37. For the purpose of the present project, the community-based intervention is not merely a setting or target but rather a resource and agent. In this case, community ownership and participation is essential for sustained success (i.e. community as a resource) and respecting and reinforcing the natural adaptive, supportive, and developmental capacities of communities (i.e. community as an agent) is a mandate of the Community Adaptation SGF. If the main goal is to get funds into the hands of local communities and therefore empower vulnerable communities to respond to climate change challenges through a bottom-up, direct-access approach, then the Community Adaptation SGF is the best mechanism to do so. An alternative which is less desirable could be that communities use their own capacities, but they do not have the funds and are often untrained. Or government (i.e. municipalities) could provide support but it is likely that money will be spent on other priorities and climate change adaptation projects could be put on the shelf indefinitely. As a result of the Community Adaptation SGF there will be at least 600 direct beneficiaries; however, due to the multiplier effect it is anticipated that an order of magnitude higher than this would be indirect beneficiaries.

D. Describe how the project is consistent with national or sub- national sustainable development strategies, including, where appropriate, national or sub-national development plans, poverty reduction strategies, national communications, or national adaptation programs of action, or other relevant instruments, where they exist.

The Community Adaptation SGF is strongly aligned to a number of national policies, plans and priorities for sustainable development and adapting to climate change.

In 2011, the South African government approved its National Climate Change Response Policy (NCCRP) which sets out a policy framework to address the management and impacts of climate change and make a fair contribution to global emission reductions. Over the next few years this policy will be used to formulate plans for implementation across different sectors such as energy, water and agriculture.

However, implementation of policies is often a challenge. Whilst government continues to develop plans like the LTAS, the proposed Community Adaptation SGF will make funds accessible to communities who are ready and willing to take immediate actions to expedite the country‟s adaptation programme by promoting grassroots actions that focus on poverty reduction, food security and sustainable livelihoods.

The action is specifically intended to contribute to the delivery of the NCCRP by: Delivering an effective programme to build climate resilience projects at household and community level which could provide a model for wider adoption by state or non-state actors;

37 McLeroy, K. R., Norton, B. L., Kegler, M. C., Burdine, J. N., & Sumaya, C. V. (2003). Community-based interventions. American Journal of Public Health,93(4), 529-533.

Inputting into the adaptation planning process, including the planned third phase of the LTAS – CSA is part of the LTAS Technical Working Group, and will share learning that emerges from the implementation of the Community Adaptation SGF. Inputting into other sectoral plans (e.g. on agriculture and water) by providing valuable evidence- based information (i.e. needs and solutions for adaptation) from grassroots communities themselves.

CSA is a member of the NCCC, a government led multi-stakeholder forum for national policy-making where the on-going learning from this action can be used to strengthen climate resilience policy. CSA is also represented on the adaptation network steering committee where information on climate adaptation implementation and policy development is shared. Lessons from this small granting process can be shared with the adaptation network at capacity building workshops held each year. This action will also contribute to the country‟s Medium Term Strategic Framework, Strategic Priority 9, specifically to the following interventions: supporting local and sustainable food production; sustainable water use; as well as Outcome 10 of the DEA delivery agreements around enhancing sustainability of natural resources and water resource quantity.

The small grants facility‟s objectives are also aligned with the National Development Plan (NDP), vision 2030, working towards the goals of supporting an integrated and inclusive rural economy. This goal states that by 2030 rural communities should have greater opportunities to participate fully in economic, social and political life and this should be underpinned by good quality services such as basic services like water. It also states that successful job creation and agricultural production will all contribute to this inclusive economy.

SANBI was accredited as South Africa‟s NIE to the AF in September 2011. The NIE Secretariat is housed within SANBI‟s Climate Change Adaptation Division. The operations of the NIE Secretariat are governed by SANBI‟s policies and procedures. The NIE is supervised by the NIE Steering Committee, which is chaired by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of SANBI. Other members of the Steering Committee include representatives from DEA, Treasury, National Planning Commission (NPC) of the Presidency and the civil-society lead Adaptation Network. Through efforts to build a coordinated adaptation response that delivers tangible outcomes, the NIE will work with project proponents to build integrated projects that support learning and demonstration objectives. Projects that are supported must align with the AF results framework and will need to meet eligibility criteria that include: i) outcomes that have concrete and tangible results; ii) outcomes that have co-benefits and focus on vulnerable communities; iii) linkages with national and local policies, plans, priorities concerning climate change and related climate and other initiatives; iv) partnerships between government, communities and individuals; v) interventions that are cost-effective, sustainable and replicable; and vi) outputs that contribute to knowledge management and learning. The Community Adaptation SGF is designed according to these eligibility criteria.

At the local level the approaches will also be supporting the implementation of priority areas under vulnerability assessments for the Mopani and Namakwa regions. In Mopani local and district government is already looking to include aspects of the Community Adaptation SGF into the IDP. In Namakwa the process of developing an IDP and longer term adaptation plan that mainstreams climate adaptation into local policy is underway, and the approaches supported by the small grants will form part of the implementation of these plans. Key aspects highlighted in the VA are to be addressed in the Namakwa plans.

E. Describe how the project meets relevant national technical standards, where applicable, such as standards for environmental assessment, building codes, etc., and complies with the Environmental and Social Policy of the Adaptation Fund.

All projects that are implemented through the South African NIE are required to follow and comply with national technical standards and relevant polices and legislation.

The Community Adaptation SGF was carefully selected for submission to the AF through a national consultation process that saw the NIE consult stakeholders to develop an investment strategy for the NIE, call for proposals and engage a high level steering committee to select proposals for further development. This process has ensured that the Community Adaptation SGF has been designed with a clear focus on agreed results.

Going forward, the implementation will be governed by the NIE Steering Committee in consultation with local beneficiaries and stakeholders. This process will ensure that the Community Adaptation SGF always reflects local circumstances and aspirations, and draws upon national actors and capabilities.

The Community Adaptation SGF will be implemented in line with the following national legislation and standards, which may have relevance for the implementation: Extended Public Works Programme standards for restoration of wetlands and riparian zones; National Building Regulations including the new Green Building Code; Disaster Management Act and the National Disaster Management Framework; Water Services Act: Norms & Standards for Quality Water Services; and Environmental Impact Assessment standards and regulation legislation i.e. Government Notice No. 805 (Listing Notices 1, 2 and 3) in terms of National Environmental Management Act No. 107 of 1998. Small grant projects that trigger a Basic Assessment or full EIA will not be funded through the Community Adaptation SGF, due to administrative costs and potential delays.

The Community Adaptation SGF complies with all environmental and social principles of the AF, most notably those related to: i) compliance with the law; ii) marginalized and vulnerable groups; iii) gender equity and women‟s empowerment; and iv) land and soil conservation. The implementation of the project will be overseen by the NIE Steering Committee, which will ensure that the principles of the AF ESP, as well as the relevant national technical standards, are adhered to during the lifetime of the project.

Any safeguards that are developed specifically for the AF would also be met. SANBI has experience implementing GEF projects that required compliance with World Bank safeguards, and these were always found to be consistent with and enabled by South African standards.

F. Describe if there is duplication of project with other funding sources, if any.

The project will not support activities that are already supported with other funding sources. Furthermore, the project will complement, build on and learn from a number of on-going projects, detailed below.

As part of the detailed design phase of the Community Adaptation SGF, extensive stakeholder mapping and consultation has taken place, including interaction with provincial and local government, universities, research institutions and relevant CBOs and NGOs (Table 7 in Section II.H provides an overview of meetings that have taken place). This has led to the creation of a stakeholder database for both project target areas (see Table 8), as well as an understanding of the scope of work of the relevant stakeholders, as related to the Community Adaptation SGF.

Table 5 below provides an outline of current climate change adaptation related projects taking place in Mopani. The government departments and institutions currently engaged in climate change adaptation related projects in Mopani include the Limpopo Department of Agriculture, Limpopo Department of Economic Development, Environment and Tourism (LEDET) and the Risk and Vulnerability Science Centre at the University of Limpopo. The inclusion of representatives from these departments and institutions on the Local Reference Group of the Community Adaptation SGF (see Section III.A) will work to ensure that as small grant projects are developed and selected, synergies with other relevant projects and programmes are sought and duplication of efforts is avoided.

In terms of work by local NGOs or CBOs, climate change adaptation work in Mopani was, with the exception of the work conducted by Association for Water and Rural Development (AWARD) and GenderCCSA, found to be very limited. The overview of local CBO and NGO work developed to date

will be strengthened during implementation of the Community Adaptation SGF by the appointment of a Facilitating Agency with strong ties to local networks, thereby ensuring that synergies are sought with the work of NGOs and CBOs and duplication of effort avoided.

Table 5: Climate change related projects in Mopani District.

Institution or organisation Project Descriptions Potential Synergies Supporting smallholder farmers in Limpopo Department of southern Africa to better manage Agriculture, with Food and climate (Giyani, Phalaborwa and Agriculture Organisation Selwane) – Aims to develop and (FAO), University of Pretoria promote smallholder farmer innovative and Food, Agriculture and techniques, methods and approaches Natural Resources Policy to managing risks to crop production Analysis Network and post-harvest handling associated (FANPRAN) with drought, floods and cyclones. The Community Adaptation SGF Limpopo Department of will draw on the learning that Limpopo Living Landscapes project Agriculture, with University of comes out of these research (Masia, Ndhengeza and Selwane) – Aims Limpopo, University of Venda, projects, enabled through the to improve the resilience and adaptability University of the inclusion of a Limpopo Department of smallholder crop farming system to Witwatersrand and Georg- of Agriculture representative on the climate variability and change. August Universirty, Goettingen Local Reference Group. Drought early warning detection project (Greater Letaba/ Mokwakwaila and Lambani) – Aims to test how such an Limpopo Department of early warning system for drought could Agriculture with Linkoping be created, based on a pilot study in the Univ. Limpopo river basin, shared by Botswana, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Mozambique, in order to increase community resilience. The Community Adaptation SGF Based on the priorities of the Limpopo will capitalise on the fact that Green Economy Plan LEDET works climate change already being with local and district municipalities promoted as a municipal priority by Limpopo Department of through municipal climate change LEDET, and that local municipal Economic Development, champions focal points. They work to officials already have some Environment and Tourism promote sustainable practices and understanding of climate change (LEDET) integrate climate change into Integrated related challenges. In addition, the Development Plans through initiatives inclusion of LEDET representatives such as the Green Municipality in the Local Reference Group will Competition. allow for further synergies with the Community Adaptation SGF. The Community Adaptation SGF A number of relevant student research will draw on the learning and projects currently underway, including: The Risk and Vulnerability knowledge that is created through Drought vulnerability of maize and natural Science Centre, University these projects, enabled through the veld in the Letaba catchment; Water use of Limpopo, with various inclusion of a Risk and efficiency of drought tolerant varieties of partners Vulnerability Science Centre maize, cowpea, and triticale; Vulnerability representative on the Local assessment of Polokwane municipality. Reference Group. Sustainable use of natural resources to improve climate change resilience in South Africa (Giyani and Tzaneen) - The Community Adaptation SGF GenderCCSA, with Oxfam Grassroots women living in poverty are will capitalise on the capacity GB and Earthlife Africa able to manage and use natural development that takes place resources to improve resilience to climate through the GenderCCSA project. change and contribute to sustainable livelihoods. Resilience in the Limpopo/Olifants Basin (RESILIM) project seeks to The Community Adaptation SGF reduce vulnerability to will share lessons learned with the AWARD, with USAID environmental/climate change through AWARD project, will build on the Southern Africa building improved transboundary water capacity developed, and will not and biodiversity governance and duplicate activities or target areas. management of the Olifants Basin

through the adoption of science-based strategies that enhance the resilience of its people and ecosystems through systemic and social learning approaches.

For the Namakwa District, stakeholder mapping and consultations worked to extend CSA‟s current overview and relationships. The process also confirmed that they already had a good overview of the government departments, institutions and CBOs and NGOs currently involved in climate change adaptation related projects. Table 6 below provides an outline of current climate change adaptation related projects taking place in Namakwa. The government departments and institutions currently engaged in climate change adaptation related projects in Namakwa include then the Northern Cape Department of Environment and Nature Conservation, Nama Khoi Local Municipality, and the Agricultural Research Council. The inclusion of representatives from these departments and institutions on the Local Reference Group will work to ensure that as small grant projects are developed and selected, synergies with other relevant projects and programmes are sought, while at the same time duplication of efforts is avoided. In terms of work by local NGOs or CBOs, there is more climate change adaptation related work than what was found in Mopani. Organisations currently involved in climate change adaptation projects in Namakwa include the Environmental Monitoring Group (EMG), Indigo Development & Change, Nurture Restore Innovate, CSA and Coastal Links Northern Cape. The networks and relationships that CSA already has with organisations in the District, and their on-going efforts keep a good overview of other projects being implemented during the implementation of the Community Adaptation SGF, will work to ensuring that synergies are sought with the work of NGOs and CBOs and duplication of effort avoided.

Table 6: Climate change related projects in Namakwa District.

Institution(s) or Project Descriptions Potential Synergies organisation(s) The Community Adaptation SGF will not fund activities that, like the Development of a Northern Cape development of the response Climate Change Response Strategy – strategy, are purely planning The department is working on a climate without implementation, yet Northern Cape Department change response strategy for the individual projects could be funded of Environment and Nature Province that will summarise expected that capitalise on the research that Conservation climate change impacts for the Province, has taken place during the identify priorities for mitigation and development of the strategy, and adaptation, and highlight potential address identified priorities or response projects. implement relevant climate change adaptation projects at the community level. A number of relevant student research The Community Adaptation SGF Agricultural Research projects currently underway, including: will draw on the learning and Council climate impacts on legume productivity, knowledge that is created through rainfall impacts on ephemeral flushes, these projects, and projects that impact of EbA management activities in build on and respond to the wetlands, and how livestock farmers use knowledge generated could be indigenous knowledge to adapt to climate funded. change. The Community Adaptation SGF will not fund activities that are purely education and awareness- raising without practical Nama Khoi Local Environmental Health and Climate implementation. Such activities Municipality Change Awareness Campaign may inform communities and stimulate climate change adaptation project design and applications for funding. West Coast Artisanal Fishers: Working The Community Adaptation SGF together with small-scale fishers to better will not fund activities that duplicate Environmental Monitoring understand their changing environment, those already underway, yet it Group, together with Coastal so as to come in a better position to could capitalise on the research Links Northern Cape sustainably manage their resources and that has taken place by funding a maintain their livelihoods. project that builds on the

Empowering small-scale farmers in knowledge created through the the Suid Bokkeveld to further develop project. Indigo development & their adaptive capacity, enabling them change to better absorb shocks and mitigate stresses produced by climate change. Indigo development & Climate change and livestock change, with WITS University management in the Succulent Karoo: and the Council for Scientific A participatory action research approach and Industrial Research to natural resources management. (CSIR) Development of a restoration protocol The Community Adaptation SGF for degraded rangelands: A research will draw on the learning and project focused on the restoration and knowledge that is created through Nurture Restore Innovate management of rangeland ecosystem this project, and projects that build services such as forage and water on and respond to the knowledge retention, for resilience to long-term generated could be funded. climate change. The Community Adaptation SGF Climate Resilience Small and Medium will not fund activities that duplicate Enterprise Development: capacity those already underway. The building and mentorship with 30 small Community Adaptation SGF will and medium enterprises in the Namakwa also not fund activities that are District on how climate change may affect purely capacity building and Conservation South Africa their businesses and what responses awareness raising nor those that they could develop. Some climate benefit only individuals. Yet it could change adaptation tools and technologies capitalise on the research that has have been transferred to relevant taken place by funding a project businesses to support their climate that builds on the knowledge change adaptation process. created through the project and benefits wider communities. The Community Adaptation SGF will not fund activities that duplicate those already underway. The Integrating climate change in local Community Adaptation SGF will municipal planning and policy: also not fund activities that Capacity building and policy development duplicate mandated government project focused on the integration of up to service delivery functions. Some of Conservation South Africa date climate change information into local the climate change adaptation municipal integrated development plans. projects developed through this The process includes the identification of process that are currently priorities for climate change adaptation unfunded, benefit wider as well as project design and budgeting. communities, respond to identified climate change priorities, and are additional to core government functions, may be funded.

The Community Adaptation SGF will not duplicate the efforts, but will instead capitalize on the learning that has taken place in other small granting mechanisms, such as SKEPPIES and the GEF- SGP. Through the running of SKEPPIES since 2004, which entailed the provision of accessible small- scale funding to local development, conservation and climate change response projects, CSA has considerable relevant experience in community-level grant making (see Box 5 in Section II.I for more details on the main learnings from SKEPPIES).

An important lesson learned from the GEF-SGP is the value of hands-on mentorship, as the implementation of the GEF-SGP has shown how the provision of on-going project support for grant recipients has been very effective in terms of ensuring sustainability and cost-effectiveness. The Community Adaptation SGF builds on this learning and takes the project support one step further through the provision of extensive support from locally based Facilitating Agencies.

The Community Adaptation SGF will also inform national processes on small grant funding. The NIE Steering Committee, on which South Africa‟s National Treasury Department is represented, has expressed its full support for exploring the small grant mechanism, noting during the process that there is a „gap in the market‟. The NIE Steering Committee will be monitoring progress of this project with a view to supporting successful processes beyond the AF investment, and linking these to South

Africa‟s Green Fund (which has a current budget of R 1.1 billion (approx. USD 110 million)) and small granting mechanism.

G. If applicable, describe the learning and knowledge management component to capture and disseminate lessons learned.

A suite of activities will be supported through the Community Adaptation SGF implementation period to support the generation of knowledge and the development of recommendations in support of scaling up and replicating the approach. These are discussed in Components 2 and 3 in Section II.A, and some are elaborated on below.

Annual fora for small grant recipients and beneficiaries, and fora for stakeholders from neighbouring and other districts and municipalities in Years 3 and 4: These will be an opportunity for the project implementers to get together, exchange ideas, learn from each other and network. The fora will also be used to introduce new information, conduct needs assessments, and review small grant project activities. The approach has great value for sharing the experiences of successful small grant projects and supporting and guiding new projects, providing a support network for projects facing challenges, and sharing successes. One-on-one project support and mentorship: Each small grant recipient will be visited quarterly by staff from the local Facilitating Agency. A social media platform: SSN will set up a social media platform for the project, where small grant recipient can interact regularly to share experiences and gain support. Small grant recipients will be encouraged to participate in network events and list-serves to become active and forge partnerships with broader adaptation network partners. Media engagement: In both districts, small grant recipients and Facilitating Agencies will share lessons and case studies from the Community Adaptation SGF through a variety of media including: articles, movies, video clips, newspapers, radio interviews etc. Case studies: Case studies/stories will be developed and shared with the South African Adaptation Network and in relevant national climate change fora, such as the NCCC and IGCCC, to capture lessons at the national scale38. The Adaptation Network is supported by stakeholders from government, academia, private sector and civil society and has a focus on supporting integrated effective adaptation processes in the country and to share methodological lessons learned within the region. Policy briefs: Briefs with recommendations for policy development will help inform local and national policy development. International meetings: UNFCCC meetings will be attended by various EE members and will be shared at side events. Grantees will also be invited to present their experiences at these side events39. University networks: SSN, CSA and the NIE will work with their university networks to encourage student study/internship opportunities with a particular project to enhance implementation support, case-study development, and broader learning around adaptation implementation. Where possible, student projects will be designed to support to the specific needs of each project.

H. Describe the consultative process, including the list of stakeholders consulted, undertaken during project preparation, with particular reference to vulnerable groups, including gender considerations, in compliance with the Environmental and Social Policy of the Adaptation Fund.

The suggestion to establish a small grants facility for climate change adaptation in South Africa was first mentioned during one on one discussions between the NIE and various NGOs, during the NIE‟s early consultation process. The suggestion was reinforced at the NIE‟s inaugural stakeholder consultation workshop, which was held in October 2012. The workshop was attended by 78 people,

38 The progress of the NIE is a standing item on the agenda of the IGCCC and NCCC. 39 These is no budget provision for attendance at UNFCCC and other International or National meetings and attendance at such events would need to be co-financed. Co-financing may be accessible through initiatives such a CDKN.

recruited via an extended invitation (i.e. through relevant networks with encouragement for further dissemination), representing a broad cross-section of civil society, government and the private sector.

The workshop report captures the issue as follows: Stakeholder Workshop Report Page 7: “Communities should be supported to access funds directly. South Africa should investigate creating/ a mechanism, like a small grants facility, whereby grassroots communities can directly access project funds. Such a facility should provide long-term project support.”

The suggestion to establish a Community Adaptation SGF was based on the request from local communities who recognised the innovative direct access model that was being promoted by the AF, and wanted to take this concept even further by providing even more direct assistance to vulnerable communities themselves. It was believed that a Community Adaptation SGF would empower local communities to identify and implement responses to their climate change vulnerabilities more directly, and in so doing, empower them to actively engage with locally relevant responses that could be sustained.

The notion of a Community Adaptation SGF was subsequently captured in the investment framework of the NIE, as follows: NIE Investment Framework Page 2: “In our efforts to build a coordinated adaptation response that delivers tangible outcomes, the NIE will work with project proponents to build between one and three integrated projects that support these learning and demonstration objectives. The NIE will be investigating the possibility of one of these projects being a small grants facility whereby vulnerable communities can directly access project funds.”

The Investment Framework was shared and approved by participants of the inaugural workshop, and signed off the high-level NIE Steering Committee, which includes representatives of South Africa‟s National Treasury. These representatives have agreed that there is no local facility for small granting and have expressed their interest in testing such a mechanism, with a view to possibly sustaining it with domestic finance if successful.

The stakeholder consultation process for the development of the full Community Adaptation SGF project proposal has been two-pronged, with locally appropriate processes being developed for the two project target areas, Mopani and Namakwa.

In Mopani the stakeholder consultations have been centered around two interlinked yet distinct processes, the participatory vulnerability assessment and the stakeholder mapping and consultations. For the former, the participatory VA, six workshops with a total of 111 participants were organised with the support of Mopani District Municipality. As outlined in Table 7 below these workshops were held in the period between the beginning of April and the end of May 2014, and included municipal officials from various relevant departments as well as Community Development Workers (CDWs). The spread of participants was aimed at developing a good understanding of sectoral vulnerabilities to climate change, and of the climate change vulnerability of local livelihoods through the representation from a range of local communities from across the two local municipalities of focus, Letaba and Giyani. The participatory workshops have ensured that the Investment Windows for the Community Adaptation SGF, which are based on the findings of the vulnerability assessments, are grounded in the inputs from municipal officials as well as CDWs, people from local communities who are engaged in development issues in their communities. A special effort was also made to ensure gender balance at the workshops, and there were generally at least 50% female participants. As part of the process of the vulnerability assessment workshops participants also identified possible adaptation responses, and these are summarized in Box 1 in the project background and context section. In a parallel, these workshops have developed the capacity of government officials and CDWs, creating awareness of climate change and better understanding of vulnerabilities and possible climate change impacts.

For the stakeholder mapping and consultations the aim was to get an overview of the relevant government departments, institutions, universities, CBOs and NGOs, and to make stakeholders aware of the Community Adaptation SGF proposal and get their input. A large number of telephone calls were made to stakeholders, as well as individual meetings with a number of them and meetings and workshops with the district and local municipalities (as outlined in Table 7 below). The whole process culminated in a Community Adaptation SGF project Coordination and Planning meeting, with over 60 local participants. Again, efforts were made to ensure gender representation, resulting in

about 40% being female participants. At the meeting stakeholders were presented with the findings of the vulnerability assessment, as well as with aspects related to governance of the Community Adaptation SGF and the small grant project identification, approval and contracting process. Participants at the meeting were given an opportunity to input, and also engaged in group work to advise on various aspects of the Community Adaptation SGF processes, based on their local understanding and knowledge.

The stakeholder mapping and consultation process has been particularly important in Mopani where, without a Facilitating Agency contracted in the detailed design phase of the Community Adaptation SGF, relationships have had to be developed. The extent of interactions and consultations has, however, led to the establishment of a strong relationship with both the District Municipality and the Local Municipalities. This has resulted in a recognition of and sense of local ownership of the Community Adaptation SGF. According to a municipal official, the municipality usually only finds out about non-government projects once there are challenges during implementation, and consequently the municipality are called upon to provide support. Hence the municipalities expressed a great deal of appreciation for being involved the process from the detailed design phase of the project.

Table 7: Stakeholder meetings during the project preparation process.

Attendance Date Participants and Purpose Location Register GenderCCSA, The Land Access Movement of Ramotshinyadi South Africa (LAMOSA), CSA and SANBI HIV and Youth 22 October 2013 n/a representatives: field visit to meet with Guide Centre, grassroots organisation Limpopo GenderCCSA and SANBI representative: field 18-21 November visit to get to know local stakeholders and the Across Mopani n/a 2013 map the local capacity for the reception of District grants Mopani District Municipality, SANBI and the 14 February 2014 DEA: meeting to introduce the project to the Tzaneen See Annex IV.2 District SANBI, the DEA and the executive committee of MDM, chaired by the Municipal Manager: to 07 March 2014 get high level support from Municipal Tzaneen See Annex IV.3 structures (see Annex III.2 for subsequent support letter from Municipal Manager) SANBI and Limpopo Department of 25 March 2014 Polokwane n/a Agriculture: stakeholder mapping meeting SANBI and Working for Water: stakeholder 27 March 2014 Tzaneen n/a mapping meeting SANBI and Working for Wetlands: stakeholder 27 March 2014 Makhado mapping meeting SANBI and University of Limpopo, Risk and 28 March 2014 Vulnerability Science Centre: stakeholder Polokwane n/a mapping meeting SANBI and LEDET: stakeholder mapping 28 March 2014 Polokwane n/a meeting SANBI and Mvula Trust: stakeholder mapping 28 March 2014 Polokwane n/a meeting SANBI and Association of Limpopo Early 31 March 2014 Childhood Development Resource & Training Tzaneen n/a (ALERT) NGOs: stakeholder mapping meeting SANBI and University of Venda: stakeholder 01 April 2014 Thohoyandou n/a mapping meeting SANBI, DEA, LEDET, MDM and local municipality representatives: Community 03 April 2014 Giyani See Annex IV.4 Adaptation SGF proposal development process workshop SANBI and Khanimamba Training and 04 April 2014 Resource Centre: stakeholder mapping Giyani n/a meeting SANBI and Goland Kulani early learning 07 April 2014 Tzaneen n/a centre: stakeholder mapping meeting

SANBI and water practitioners from Giyani and 10 April 2014 Letaba: Participatory Vulnerability Assessment Giyani See Annex IV.5 workshop SANBI and Disaster Managers from Giyani 11 April 2014 and Letaba: Participatory Vulnerability Tzaneen See Annex IV.6 Assessment workshop SANBI and extension officers from Giyani and 14 April 2014 Letaba: Participatory Vulnerability Assessment Giyani See Annex IV.7 workshop SANBI and Cooperative for Assistance and 20 May 2014 Relief Everywhere (CARE): stakeholder Tzaneen n/a mapping meeting SANBI and University of Venda Income 20 May 2014 Generation Centre (UIGC): stakeholder Giyani n/a mapping meeting SANBI and community development workers 22 May 2014 from Letaba: Participatory Vulnerability Mokwakwaila See Annex IV.8 Assessment workshop SANBI and Choice Trust: stakeholder mapping 23 May 2014 Tzaneen n/a meeting SANBI and Batlhabine Communal Property 23 May 2014 Association (CPA): stakeholder mapping Tzaneen n/a meeting SANBI and community development workers 26 May 2014 from Giyani: Participatory Vulnerability Giyani See Annex IV.9 Assessment workshop SANBI and health practitioners from Giyani 28 May 2014 and Letaba: Participatory Vulnerability Giyani See Annex IV.10 Assessment workshop Mopani multi- stakeholder workshop: 13 June 2014 Community Adaptation SGF proposal Tzaneen See Annex IV.11 Coordination and Planning meeting

In Namakwa the consultative process for the Community Adaptation SGF has been somewhat different, as CSA has been engaging with stakeholders in the community as well as district municipality since 2001, with a focus on climate change awareness specifically from 2009. Climate adaptation workshops have been run with local stakeholders: including District and Local officials involved in DRR planning from 2010, where a focus on the importance of ecosystem services as part of DRR was emphasised. As part of the development of the DRR plans, the district developed a vulnerability assessment between 2011 and 2012, with support from CSA. This vulnerability assessment included socio-economic, ecological, institutional and climate vulnerability.

Consultation with the district and other local stakeholder is on-going. CSA is supporting the municipality in their integrated development plan process for the short term and the development of an adaptation plan for the medium to long-term, which includes highlighting climate change adaptation projects that can be implemented within the district. This process is critical to highlighting areas where small grants support is needed in order to support adaptation going forward and allows for interaction with local stakeholders on an on-going basis.

CSA has also worked with small-scale communal livestock farmers since 2006, and is currently working with >80 communal farmers to implement sustainable agriculture practices that also help them adapt to a changing climate. CSA does regular trainings with the farmers and provides mentorship support to them. As part of the sustainable practices implemented, the Agriculture Research Council and Working for Wetlands have been working with farmers to also restore wetlands in the area and CSA has continued to engage with these partners in the scoping and implementation of this Community Adaptation SGF.

In order to deepen the consultation process and further ensure a sound participatory process, CSA and the NIE conducted a stakeholder mapping in order to broaden its stakeholder networks. This resulted in an extensive list of Namakwa stakeholders, as can be observed in Table 8 below. A specific effort was made to include small and grassroots associations and organisations. The stakeholder mapping included telephone calls to all the organisations that CSA did not already have an established relationship with, to get an understanding of what they do and to explore whether the

Community Adaptation SGF could be relevant to their work.

The stakeholder mapping was followed by two workshop engagements. On 27 November 2013 an initial engagement session was held in Cape Town at the Annual General Meeting of the Northern Cape Regional Network, a network of NGOs and CBOs active across the Northern Cape, including the Namakwa District Municipality. This was followed by a large stakeholder workshop in Springbok on 13 February 2014 (equivalent to that which was held in Mopani on 13 June 2014), to which all of the stakeholders identified during the mapping exercise were invited. The aims of the large stakeholder workshop included: i) introducing the stakeholders to the project; ii) ensuring broad representation and stakeholder consultation in the detailed design phase of the project; iii) identifying the most important sectors and/or areas that will be affected by climate change in the Namakwa District (which informed the Community Adaptation SGF Investment Windows); and iv) brainstorming some „good adaptation‟ ideas for Namakwa (see Box 2 in Section II.A). The workshop was attended by 61 representatives of 38 locally active institutions and organisations. See Annex IV.1 for the attendance register.

Following the consultation processes in Mopani and Namakwa, a Discussion Document outlining the foundation for the Community Adaptation SGF project was drafted and shared with all the stakeholders for input. The document outlines: i) the Investment Windows that had been identified based on stakeholder input and climate vulnerabilities; ii) oversight, governance and coordination of the Community Adaptation SGF; iii) roles and responsibilities; and iv) selection criteria for small grant recipients and adaptation projects. Stakeholder comments were received and included in the final Discussion Document, which can be found in Annex V. The document presented in Annex V has been updated, based on stakeholder feedback, to inform Section II.A. The stakeholders identified in Mopani and Namakwa are outlined in Table 8 below.

Table 8: Overview of stakeholders identified in Mopani and Namakwa.

Mopani organisations/ institutions Namakwa organisations/ institutions AWARD Bergsig ondersteuning groep Batlhabine CPA Biodiversity and Red Meat Association Boitumelo Community Development Initiative Cape Leopard Trust Boitumelo Community Development Initiative Catholic Development Orange River (KDOR) CARE SA Centre for Environmental Rights Choice Trust Coastal Links Northern Cape Exilite (Agricultural Group) Concordia Farmers‟ Association Friends of the Haenertsburg Grasslands Eco Sebenza GenderCCSA Endangered Wildlife Trust Goland Kulani early learning centre Environmental Monitoring Group Independent Development Trust Food Sovereignty Campaign (FSC) NGOs, CBOs, Itireleng The Green Connection Associations & Cooperatives Keep The Dream 196 Harmony Home for the Aged Khanimamba Training & Resource centre House of Joy Kruger 2 Canyons Indigo Development and Change LAMOSA Kamiesberg Heritage Foundation Limpopo Organic Farmers & Excillie Co- Lawyers for Human Rights operative (LIOFA) Modjadji V Care Group The Legal Resource Centre Mohlanatsi Intergrated Rural Development Luvuyo Drop in Centre Programme Mopani Farmers Union Mme Re Katlise Mvula Trust Mure Steinkopf Ausa Nkuzi Nababeep Advice and Development Office Ramotshinyadi HIV and Youth Guide Centre Nababeep Development Foundation

Thusanang Nababeep Rehabilitation Trees for Africa Nama e Skills Centre Tsogang water and sanitation Namakwa Ontwikkeling (NAMKO) NamaPride NamPetroleum Nurture Restore Innovate Regional Emerging Farmers Association Red Meat Producers Association Richtersveld Advice Office Rural Development Support Programme Sekisonki Women‟s Group SKEPPIES Social Change Assistance Trust Soebatsfontein Advice Office

Spoegrivier Advice Centre Spoegrivier small stock farmers support Sprankie hoop Steinkopf Advice Office Steinkopf Farmers‟ Association Surplus People Project Trust for Community Outreach and Education Tshintsha Amakhaya Women on Farms Project You and Your Money Youth Second Chance and Adventure Group Arid Zone Ecology Forum Networks, Coalitions & Northern Cape NGO Coalition Forums Northern Cape Regional Network Firewise Agricultural Research Council Greater Giyani Municipality Council for Scientific and Industrial Research Greater Letaba Municipality Greater Cederberg Fire Management Limpopo Department of Agriculture Nama Khoi Local Municipality

Limpopo Department of Economic Namakwa Disaster Management Centre Development, Environment and Tourism Universities, Government Mopani District Municipality Disaster Institutions, Namakwa District Municipality Management Centre Government Departments & Mopani District Municipality Namakwa/South African National Parks Municipalities Northern Cape Department of Economic South African National Parks Programmes Development and Tourism University of Limpopo, Risk and Vulnerability Northern Cape Department of Environment Science Centre and Nature Conservation University of Venda Income Generation Working for Water Centre Working for Water Working for Wetlands Working for Wetlands

I. Provide justification for funding requested, focusing on the full cost of adaptation reasoning.

Climate related risks are generally greater for disadvantaged and poor communities, due to limited adaptive capacity and associated sensitivity to impacts. Climate change thus poses an unevenly distributed threat, and requires climate finance to find its way to the most vulnerable communities. Yet those that have the greatest need for funding, the most vulnerable communities, tend to lack the capacity required to access funding. The capacity gap relates to being able to formulate a technical climate change adaptation argument and to other project development, implementation, reporting and financial management requirements. After what is increasingly recognised as an inadequate top-down approach to general development for disadvantaged and poor communities, the need for a bottom-up approach that empowers communities to develop their own responses is apparent. The Community Adaptation SGF addresses this need by establishing a mechanism that provides the capacity development support required for community representatives to identify, develop and implement their own climate change adaptation responses.

Baseline:

South Africa‟s climate response is guided by the NDP and the NCCRP, and is supported by sectoral legislation and the IDPs on a municipal level. Implementation of the NDP emphasises socio-economic development and addressing pressing challenges that the country is facing, including those exacerbated by climate variability and change. However, the response to extreme climate events to date has been fragmented and reactive, focusing mainly on disaster relief and DRR.

At the national level, South Africa‟s LTAS Flagship Research Programme responds to the NCCRP by undertaking climate change adaptation research and scenario planning for South Africa and the Southern African sub-region. At a provincial level, both Limpopo and the Northern Cape Provinces have climate change strategies. However, at a municipal level, there is very limited understanding on how to mainstream climate change adaptation responses and implement appropriate actions.

In Mopani, although budget has been set aside to develop a climate change strategy for the District, this strategy is yet to be developed. Sectoral departments have undertaken development projects, but largely have not integrated climate change into their work (e.g. through IDPs/SDFs). The undertaking of the VA and facilitation of related workshops in the District highlighted that municipal officials, as well as non-government stakeholders in general, have a limited understanding of climate change adaptation, the development of programmes to respond to climate-related challenges, and the implementation of appropriate responses.

In Namakwa, CSA has a track record of working with government (municipal) and non-government stakeholders to develop and implement climate change projects. Taking advantage of this previous experience, lessons learned from the SKEPPIES project (see Section II.F and Box 5 below), for example, have been incorporated into the design of the Community Adaptation SGF. However, despite CSA‟s previous and on-going work which has included engagement at the municipal level on raising awareness on climate change adaptation, there has been limited mainstreaming of climate change adaptation into the IDP/SDFs. This equates to limited conversion of awareness into action and limited implementation of appropriate responses at the local level. A climate change strategy for the District is yet to be developed and there is no climate change committee or forum through which adaptation interventions can be co-ordinated. As in Mopani, there are no learning networks that support the sharing of climate change adaptation experiences at the local level.

Because of the limited institutional capacity within the receiving environment in both target Districts, there are limited opportunities for local, vulnerable communities to access climate finance. This equates to few examples of successful, locally developed and implemented responses to the relevant impacts of climate variability and change, including general warming, more extreme temperatures, more intense heavy rainfall events, shifting rainfall patterns and associated droughts.

Box 5: Building on the experience from SKEPPIES.

The SKEPPIES Initiative, a programme funded by CitiFoundation, provides mentorship, training and support to projects and small enterprises with combined development and conservation benefits in the Succulent Karoo. Although no longer functioning as a small grants facility, SKEPPIES, supported by the Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA) and SANBI, started off by providing accessible small-scale funding to local development, conservation and climate change response projects. Through SKEPPIES, CSA has considerable relevant experience in community-level grant making. The main lessons learned from the implementation of SKEPPIES and the responding designs of the Community Adaptation SGF include: The need for on-site project support: provided by regular onsite support via systematic project site visits and continuous support. The need to support the development of particular skills, including financial management and reporting skills: provided through a capacity development component for grant recipients, from the point of project development and throughout implementation. The need to have a good understanding of the local environment: provided through the role of the Facilitating Agencies. The importance of including local government departments and institution in governance processes: addressed through the inclusion of local government departments and institutions on the Local Reference Group. The need to separate project development and decision making: addressed through the establishment of a National Community Adaptation SGF Project Steering Committee whose responsibility it is to make the final decision on the small grant projects that will be awarded funding

With-project scenario (adaptation alternative):

To address the limited opportunities for local, vulnerable communities to access climate finance in the two project target areas, the Community Adaptation SGF requires USD 2,442,682 to: i) pilot a mechanism that provides climate finance directly to targeted beneficiaries to build resilience to the impacts of climate variability and change; ii) provide the required support to the targeted beneficiaries in order to enable the development and implementation of climate change adaptation responses; and iii) share experiences to develop an understanding of small grant development and implementation in the context of climate finance, with a view to sustaining, scaling up and replicating this model as appropriate.

Small grants will be provided for at least 12 projects, based on proposals suggested by local institutions in consultation with vulnerable communities. The small grant projects will therefore respond directly to the needs of local communities. This will build climate resilience where it is urgently needed by instilling a sense of ownership in the interventions, and enhance the sustainability of the responses and the AF investment. Projects will fall into one of three Investment Windows40 i.e. i) Climate-Smart Agriculture; ii) Climate-Resilient Livelihoods; or iii) Climate-Proof Infrastructure. These windows were developed by combining local-level climate projections and the results of on-the- ground VAs undertaken in each of the two project target areas, and therefore respond to relevant climate risks and local level needs. The Investment Windows are detailed in Section II.A, together with a list of potential projects per window, as suggested by stakeholders from the relevant project target areas. Local and scientific knowledge will be combined to ensure that each project delivers concrete, tangible adaptation benefits to vulnerable community members, including women (as per the targets detailed in Section III.E). These responses to specific risks posed by climate variability and change will be implemented by local institutions, with the required support provided by the Community Adaptation SGF. This approach responds directly to calls from civil society in South Africa to bring the principle of „direct access‟ closer to vulnerable communities, thus empowering them to determine how climate finance will be used, and to build the institutional capacity for the implementation of adaptation efforts at the local level. The approach is additional to current, limited efforts in the project target areas to build the resilience of communities vulnerable to the impacts of climate variability and change.

To address the capacity constraints at the local level, the Community Adaptation SGF will support Facilitating Agencies in each project target area. These Facilitating Agencies are to work closely with grant recipients to support them to identify, develop and implement small grant projects in the context of climate change adaptation at all stages of the project cycle. This will include local level project administration, reporting and financial management. The provision of this high level of effort is based

40 Projects may fall into more than one Investment Window, but a priority window will have to be identified by local institutions applying for a small grant from the Community Adaptation SGF.

on the lessons learned from other projects, including SKEPPIES (see Box 5) and the GEF-SGP. The details of the support provided to grant recipients are explained in five stages in Section II.A. Development of small grant projects will be guided by a set of criteria that will ensure projects clearly respond to experienced or anticipated impacts of climate variability and change, and meet the objectives of the Community Adaptation SGF, the NIE and the AF. This type and level of support designed to build adaptive capacity is not currently offered directly to local institutions, and is therefore additional to current government and donor-led efforts to build local capacity.

Small grant recipients and beneficiaries will be supported to participate in capacity building, learning and reflection activities that facilitate the sharing of knowledge on best practices from the local to the national level. Experiences will be documented and shared to develop an understanding of small grant development and implementation in the context of climate finance, with a view to sustaining, scaling up and replicating this model as appropriate. This will be achieved through innovative learning and sharing processes, including: i) annual fora where small grant recipients and beneficiaries are supported to come together in each of the project target areas to share experiences, discuss climate change adaptation challenges and possible integrated adaptation strategies; ii) fora where small grant recipients from both project target areas come together (stakeholders from neighbouring and other districts and municipalities will be invited to these fora, with a view to extending the project benefits beyond the project target sites, to stimulate the scaling up of the Community Adaptation SGF); and iii) a social media platform for reflection and learning within and between districts. Municipal and other government officials will be invited to the project‟s learning events to be exposed to the experiences of the grant recipients, to give inputs and to support processes to mainstream project outcomes into IDPs/SDFs. This will contribute to scaling up of climate change adaptation responses at the local level. Furthermore, case studies and policy recommendations, including potential alignment with South Africa‟s domestic Green Fund, will be captured in relevant formats and targeted at particular stakeholders at community, national and international levels. The sharing, capture and documentation of experiences and benefits of a direct access approach to climate finance, with a view to creating a long-term small grant facility for supporting climate change adaptation in vulnerable communities, is additional to current efforts in the project target areas, and indeed at a national scale.

J. Describe how the sustainability of the project outcomes has been taken into account when designing the project.

The Community Adaptation SGF has been designed from the outset with sustainability in mind, both at the project level and at the level of creating a Climate Finance Instrument that can support local level adaptation in the project target areas and beyond once the AF investment concludes.

At the level of the small grant projects, the programme of work that is supported will be aligned with district, provincial and national efforts to enable the implementation of appropriate adaptation responses. As such, the Facilitating Agencies will create linkages between the small grant projects and on-going district-level spatial and adaptation planning processes, both in terms of ensuring alignment between the existing enabling environment and the projects, and with a view to influencing the enabling and policy environment so that it is more supportive of the best practice approached that emerge through the Community Adaptation SGF.

In Mopani, stakeholder interactions and consultations during the detailed design phase have led to the establishment of a very strong relationship with both the District Municipality and the Local Municipalities. Interactions with local and district government already at the detailed design phase have created a sense of local ownership, to the point where the Community Adaptation SGF is to be listed in the local government‟s IDPs. Continued engagement with the Mopani Local and District Governments throughout the implementation of the Community Adaptation SGF, and further inviting them to the grant recipients‟ learning exchange events, will ensure a continued sense of ownership of the projects funded through the Community Adaptation SGF. Bringing the grant recipients together with Local and District Government officials, and further inviting relevant provincial government officials to these forums, will also provide a platform through which small grant recipients and government officials can build relationships that extend beyond the 4 year implementation period of the Community Adaptation SGF. Providing platforms for lessons-sharing will also catalyse learning, sharing and networking, investing in the development of a culture that supports adaptation. This will support learning beyond the 4 year implementation period.

In Namakwa, CSA has a long standing relationship with the District Municipality, and is currently supporting the municipality in their IDP process for the short term and in the development of an adaptation plan for the medium- to long-term. This includes highlighting climate change adaptation projects that can be implemented within the district. This process is critical to highlighting areas where small grant support is needed in order to support adaptation going forward, and allows for interaction with local stakeholders on an on-going basis. The projects funded through the Community Adaptation SGF therefore have the potential to be well aligned with municipal climate change adaptation priorities, and to have the buy-in and support of the district. As in Mopani, inviting the district and local governments, and further inviting relevant provincial government officials, to the learning exchange events of the grant recipients will provide a platform through which grant recipients and government officials can build relationships that could go beyond the time frames of the Community Adaptation SGF funded projects.

Intrinsic to the project design, is the intention that the Community Adaptation SGF itself will capacitate and empowers communities to manage their own resources effectively after the lifetimes of the project. At the end of the project, institutions who have received small grants will be better equipped to access additional resources, and able to utilise skills developed through the project‟s training and implementation processes in formulating and implementing further responses to climate change. The participatory approach will also ensure that communities themselves identify risks and priorities, supporting legitimacy and sustainability of project outcomes.

The Community Adaptation SGF investments are seen as an opportunity to pilot an approach that can be scaled up across South Africa and beyond. There is national interest in developing a small grant finance mechanism in support of the Green Economy generally, and adaption more specifically, that can be sustained in the long-term with domestic and international climate finance resources. This has been expressed regularly during NIE consultation processes at the NIE Steering Committee meetings. As mentioned previously, it is envisaged that the approach proposed here will provide robust lessons and insights for such future funding mechanisms. Even prior to the inception of the Community Adaptation SGF in the two target district municipalities, there is already interest shown from local government representatives of other district municipalities, who would welcome an expansion of the Community Adaptation SGF to their regions. Alfred Nzo District Municipality, in the Eastern Cape Province, is one such example. CSA is currently working in Alfred Nzo, thus providing an opportunity to facilitate the scaling up of the Community Adaptation SGF. Once the benefits to local, vulnerable communities in the two project target areas are shared nationally, it is likely that other district municipalities will also welcome the expansion of the Community Adaptation SGF. This will facilitate the up-scaling of project benefits to other areas with communities vulnerable to the impacts of climate variability and change.

K. Provide an overview of the environmental and social impacts and risks identified as being relevant to the project.

In accordance with the AF ESP, the Community Adaptation SGF has been designed to be compliant with a set of environmental and social principles. These principles were emphasised during all stakeholder consultations that resulted in the development of the set of Investment Windows for the (at least) 12 projects. Whilst the small grant projects will only be decided on during the project development and appraisal processes of the Community Adaptation SGF, the principles of the AF ESP will from part of the criteria used to asses detailed project proposals. This screening process is outlined in Section II.A (Small Grant Project Screening and Review) and in Annex VI. Any small grant projects that do not meet the requirement for a project with no significant risks in terms of the AF ESP, or a project with minor risks that can be mitigated, will be excluded.

only be approved where exemptions can be provided. These include riparian zone activities (such as rehabilitation or restoration of wetlands, rehabilitation and restoration of river banks including erosion control and the construction of low river crossings) and littoral zone activities (such as small-scale coastal storm protection structures). Precedents are in place for the provision of exemptions for these activities, and such exemptions will need to be provided in writing before any grants that entail these proposed activities are awarded.

The Community Adaptation SGF and the (at least) 12 projects will therefore be in Category B i.e. projects with possible but limited anticipated adverse environmental or social impacts. An Environmental and Social Risk Management Plan has been prepared (see Annex VI). The results of a pre-screening of the Community Adaptation SGF and potential projects are presented in Table 9 below. During implementation this screening will be re-applied during the: i) Facilitating Agency quarterly site visits to all project sites; ii) six-monthly progress reports submitted by small grant recipients to the Facilitating Agencies; and iii) six-monthly performance reports (for the overall Community Adaptation SGF) submitted by the Facilitating Agencies to the EE, for submission to the NIE.

Table 9: Predicted environmental and social impacts.

Potential impacts and Checklist of risks – further environmental and No further assessment required for compliance assessment and social principles management required for compliance Compliance with the X – All projects under the Community Adaptation SGF will be Law compliant with South African and international laws. X – The direct access modality of the Community Adaptation SGF is designed to capacitate grant recipients and vulnerable communities through a “bottom-up” approach. Access and Equity This will enable fair and equitable access to project benefits to all participants, including marginalised and vulnerable groups, who meet the project eligibility criteria, X – All projects under the Community Adaptation SGF will benefit marginalised and vulnerable groups living in the two Marginalised and project target areas, including women, children, the elderly, Vulnerable Groups indigenous people, people living with disabilities and people living with HIV/AIDS. X – All projects under the Community Adaptation SGF will respect and promote human rights, including, inter alia, Human Rights equality, freedom of expression and association, housing, education and access to information, as stipulated by the Constitution of South Africa, 1996. X – Gender-sensitive indicators (see Section III.E) have been included in the design of the Community Adaptation SGF to ensure that gender equity and women‟s empowerment are emphasised. This includes representation of women within the management structures of grant recipients, and Gender Equity and representation of women within the beneficiaries of the Women’s individual projects. This will ensure that, during Empowerment implementation, both men and women: i) are able to participate fully and equitably; ii) receive comparable social and economic benefits (see Section II.B); and iii) do not suffer disproportionate adverse effects (no such effects are anticipated). X – All projects under the Community Adaptation SGF will meet the applicable core labour standards identified by the International Labour Organization, as well as national standards outlined in the Department of Labour‟s Strategic Core Labour Rights Plan 2014-2019. This places emphasis on job creation for local people, with a focus on women. At a minimum, the stipulated proportion of jobs will be awarded to people with disabilities. X – None of the projects under the Community Adaptation Indigenous Peoples SGF will contravene the rights and responsibilities set forth in

the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. All projects will seek to enhance benefits to local and traditional communities. Involuntary X – No involuntary resettlement will occur as a result of any Resettlement of the projects under the Community Adaptation SGF. X – The Community Adaptation SGF will consider funding projects in Protected Areas. However, projects that result in negative environmental impacts (as indicated by the national EIA legislation – see Section II.E) will not be funded) see Protection of Natural criteria in Section II.A). Furthermore, and beyond the relevant Habitats national legislation, Facilitating Agencies will encourage potential small grant recipients to include interventions that protect and conserve the natural environment in the design of projects. X – None of the projects under the Community Adaptation SGF will impact negatively on the conservation of biological diversity. Projects that result in significant negative Conservation of environmental impacts will not be considered for funding, Biological Diversity therefore no significant impacts on natural habitats or biological diversity are anticipated. Rather, through the anticipated ecological infrastructure and related projects, biological diversity will be conserved X – All projects under the Community Adaptation SGF will build resilience to climate change, and will not result in an Climate Change increase in greenhouse gas emissions or in other drivers of climate change. X – None of the projects under the Community Adaptation Pollution Prevention SGF will produce excessive waste, or release pollutants, and and Resource all projects will seek to minimise material resource use and Efficiency be energy efficient where appropriate. X – None of the projects under the Community Adaptation SGF will impact negatively on public health. In Mopani, challenges to public health were seen as one of the most important risks posed by climate change. Health-related Public Health projects will therefore be considered under the Climate- Resilient Livelihoods Investment Window, and any relevant projects under the Community Adaptation SGF will build the climate resilience of project beneficiaries‟ health. X – All Detailed Project Proposals received from potential grant recipients will identify sites of physical and cultural Physical and Cultural heritage. Projects that propose the alteration, damage or Heritage removal of such sites will not be considered under the Community Adaptation SGF. X – Projects under the Community Adaptation SGF, particularly the Climate-Smart Agriculture and Climate- Lands and Soil Resilient Livelihoods Investment Windows, will seek to Conservation conserve land and soil. This will include through inter alia the upgrading and/or maintenance of ecological infrastructure in the two project target areas.

PART III: IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS

A. Describe the arrangements for project implementation.

National Implementing Entity SANBI will be the National Implementing Entity for the Community Adaptation SGF. SANBI will support project implementation by assisting in monitoring project budgets and expenditures and supporting the recruitment and contracting of project personnel and consultant services, including subcontracting. SANBI will also monitor project implementation and the achievement of the project outcomes/outputs and ensure the efficient use of donor funds.

Executing Entity The Community Adaptation SGF will be administered through SouthSouthNorth (SSN) Trust, the project‟s Executing Entity. The SSN Trust was identified following a thorough review of potentially suitable existing entities in South Africa and a subsequent process that called for expressions of interest. See Box 6 for further details.

SSN Trust will be responsible for receiving and disbursing funds, for contracting the project‟s Facilitating Agencies and other service providers, and for contracting arrangements with all small grant recipients. They will also be responsible for overall project monitoring, evaluation and reporting and will work directly with the NIE to ensure that AF reporting requirements are met.

SSN Trust will appoint and designate a Project Manager (PM) for the duration of the project. The PM‟s primary responsibility will be to ensure that the project produces the results specified in the project document to the required standard of quality and within the specified constraints of time and cost.

Box 6: Process for identification of the project‟s Executing Entity.

When the original Concept Note for the Community Adaptation SGF project was submitted to the AF, it was noted that additional work was still needed to identify the executing entity for the project. Three options were explored: The use of an existing structure. SANBI playing the role of both Implementing Entity and Executing Entity. The identification of an appropriate institution through a process that called for Expressions of Interest.

In support of this process, in 2013, a desk top study was conducted by Sharlin Hemraj of the National Treasury Department. The study examined the Landcare, the Expanded Public Works Programme, Global Environment Facility, the Drylands Fund and the Green Fund against a set of criteria that covered aspects such as governance and institutional arrangements, project application and approval processes and reporting requirements. The study concluded that none of the existing mechanisms were suited to functioning as the Executing Entity for the Community Adaptation SGF (See the Technical Note, Annex VII.1).

It was noted that the only government institution that appeared to have the necessary experience to play this role was SANBI, and it was recommended that SANBI approach the AF to enquire as to whether or not this would be possible. It was noted that this would be a temporary arrangement that would give South Africa the time to look at the finance mechanisms and decide on the best future long-term configuration for the small grant funding instrument. This suggestion was put to the AF Secretariat who responded that this would not be appropriate.

The NIE Steering Committee then agreed that the NIE will go to market and call for proposals from parties who were interested in playing the role as Executing Entity. In March 2014, SANBI issued a call for expressions of interest from organisations who were “interested in partnering with it as Executing Entity for South Africa‟s Small Grant Facility pilot project for Climate Change Adaptation”. Four applications were received and a sub-committee of the NIE Steering Committee met to review the applications against an agreed set of criteria, and to make a recommendation to the NIE Steering Committee. (See the Call for Expressions of Interest and NIE SC Task Team recommendation, Annex VII.2).

Criteria for measuring functionality Qualifications, competencies and relevant experience of the service provider (skills profile of the organisation and project team, including relevant expertise and project management experience with small grant processes and in Climate Change Adaptation and climate finance both locally and internationally). Current involvement in Climate Change Adaptation research, policy and/ or implementation, including ability to co-finance the programme of work and likely potential to leverage future benefits. Approach and methodology including innovation (how the project team will set up and manage the project, how it proposes to interface with stakeholders and beneficiaries, how learning will be captured and shared, and how project outputs will be used to leverage future benefits).

The NIE SC unanimously supported the resulting recommendation of the task team that SouthSouthNorth Trust be selected as the Executing Entity for the Community Adaptation SGF.

project identification, design and implementation, day-to-day operations of the project, and operational and financial management and reporting.

The Facilitating Agencies will invite two officials from each of the District Municipalities to work alongside them in the project development process so as to build local capacity in this area, and to ensure optimal alignment between the project development process and related municipal activities such as Local Economic Development and Integrated Development Planning.

CSA will act as Facilitating Agency for Namakwa. They have a long history working in this area, and have an excellent track record in community engagement and grant making, including project identification, development, training and management support. They also have an established long- standing relationship with the District Municipality. The Facilitating Agency for Mopani will be identified through a transparent procurement process that will commence once it is certain that the project will proceed.

As described in Section II.A, during the Community Adaptation SGF inception phase, the NIE will engage directly with the EE and Facilitating Agencies on operating procedures that will apply to the management of the SGF, and that will be necessary to ensure compliance with SANBI and AF policies and procedures. Particular focus will be placed on the AF ESP, and a dedicated capacity building session will help to ensure that both the EE and Facilitating Agencies are able to competently screen small grant project ideas, concepts and proposals for environmental and social risks, and to detect these in future project monitoring, evaluation and reporting processes.

Box 7: Note for reviewers: Identification of a Facilitating Agency for Mopani – challenges and the way forward.

Reviewers will remember that, at the time of submission of the draft project concept to the AF Board, GenderCCSA had been identified as Facilitating Agency for Mopani. During the initial stages of the Vulnerability Assessment that was conducted for the Mopani area, it became apparent that GenderCCSA may not be the most appropriate institution to play this role, and that, in order to support a process that is fair and transparent, suitable organisations should be invited to tender for this assignment. It follows that it has been agreed that the Facilitating Agency for Mopani will be identified through a transparent procurement process that will commence once it is certain that the project will proceed.

Service providers Service providers will be contracted to provide specialist support as required over the duration of the project. These services will include technical input to proposal development and review, specialist training, writing of case studies and independent project evaluations.

Oversight, Governance and Coordination The proposed governance and implementation arrangements for the project are illustrated in Figure 9 and the envisaged roles and responsibilities that will be assigned to each of these structures is described below.

Strategic and operational oversight, and in particular oversight over compliance with the AF ESP, will be ensured by the NIE.

The NIE is governed by the NIE Steering Committee, which includes SANBI as the accredited National Implementing Entity for South Africa, DEA as the Designated Authority, National Treasury, the NPC and the Adaptation Network. The Steering Committee is chaired by SANBI with DEA as Deputy Chair.

The Steering Committee has the following functions: Providing overall project governance. Supporting SANBI to ensure overall compliance with the spirit, policies and procedures of the AF. Monitoring AF ESP risks, and oversight of corrective action that may need to be taken. Supporting the NIE to build a coordinated adaptation response that delivers tangible outcomes. Guiding the development of and endorse the NIE investment strategy, ensuring optimal linkages with the policy environment and that projects are driven by country needs

Setting up and oversee the project review process, including guiding the development of terms of reference for reviewers, setting up the review panel, and considering the recommendations of reviewers. Endorsing projects for submission to the AF, ensuring appropriate linkages with AF criteria and facilitating appropriate consultation with and, where necessary, endorsement from relevant spheres of government. From time to time this may involve promoting agreement on the roles of relevant institutions in implementing AF projects and facilitate the resolution of disputes among project partners. Promoting cooperation between relevant South African Institutions and funding agencies to enhance synergy and avoid duplication between adaptation efforts, to leverage additional resources where appropriate, and to support information management and flows between and feedback between the NIE and the NCCC and IGCCC and contribute towards climate finance and climate change adaptation policy development.

One of the main objectives of the NIE is to draw lessons and experiences from the NIE project development and implementation processes. This will support climate change adaptation planning, decision making and monitoring and evaluation with a view to enhancing the benefits of adaptation responses both nationally and internationally. This process will be supported by both DEA and SANBI.

Project Management Team The day to day management of the project will be supported by a Project Management Team that will comprise SSN Trust and the two Facilitating Agencies. As and when required, the Project Management Team may co-opt others such as the NIE or other members of the NIE Steering Committee to join the Project Management Team. Project Management Team meetings will be coordinated by the EE‟s Community Adaptation SGF Project Manager, and will happen at least monthly.

Project Steering Committee A PSC will be set up to provide overall governance and project oversight and to consider recommendations regarding the approval of the small grants that are the subject of this project.

The PSC will comprise representatives from: the National Department of Environmental Affairs; the Adaptation Network, which is a network whose membership includes a broad spectrum of NGOs, academia, government and business organisations with a shared interest in adaptation strategies for the negative impacts of climate change. The Adaptation Network represents Civil Society on the NIE Steering Committee and is well placed to do the same on the Community Adaptation SGF PSC; the Mopani and Namakwa District Municipalities; the NIE; and technical climate change adaptation experts who are drawn from National Academic Institutions and target area government departments.

The EE will convene and act as Secretariat for this committee, and both the EE and the Facilitating Agencies will take guidance from the PSC processes. The PSC will meet quarterly.

Local Reference Groups Local Reference Groups will be set up at project inception. They will support the Facilitating Agencies to ensure that projects are locally contextualised, consider local and indigenous knowledge, integrated and coordinated into on-going local programmes of work, technically robust and sustainable. In some cases they may also be able to attest to the credibility of the prospective small grant recipients.

It is envisaged that members of these groups will include the officials from the democratically elected Mopani and Namakwa local government District Municipalities, relevant Local Municipalities and relevant provincial departments, including the Limpopo Department of Agriculture, LEDET and the Northern Cape Department of Environment and Nature Conservation.The members will also include relevant national sector departments and experts from tertiary institutions and research institutions, including the University of Limpopo, the Risk and Vulnerability Science Centre at the University of

Limpopo and the Agricultural Research Council. Amongst others, prospective small grant recipients will not be able to be members of these groups.

These Local Reference Groups will play an important role in concept screening during the first stage of the project development process, in detailed application development and in project implementation, learning, monitoring and reporting processes.

Figure 9: Institutional Arrangements for the Community Adaptation SGF project. The black arrows indicate the relationships between the different project partners and committees. The purple arrows indicate the flow of funds. Abbreviations: Executing Entity (EE); SouthSouthNorth (SSN) Trust; Facilitating Agency (FA); and Conservation South Africa (CSA).

Contract management A number of measures are in place to manage the financial and project risks. The SSN Trust‟s Contracts Office will ensure that the NIE‟s fiduciary standards are upheld, and will undertake the contractual and administrative functions that are required in relation to overall procurement whilst tracking payments and expenditure for the duration of the Community Adaptation SGF. The South African Trust Property Control Act regulates the SSN Trust. SSN Trust‟s designated Managing Trustees are external South African professionals practicing in the legal and accounting fields. The Managing Trustees have delegated defined authority to the Trust‟s Chief Executive Officer and the Trust‟s Contracts Office to administer day-to-day procedural issues in order to ensure efficient operation. The SSN Trust is subject to an annual audit.

The SSN Trust‟s Protocol sets out the Trusts Fiduciary standards and governs the operating procedures of the Trust itself and, by implication, the operations of the SSN Trust‟s Contracts Office. In relation to fiduciary roles and responsibilities, the Protocol outlines the following five primary functions of the Contacts Office, namely: To control the spending of funds in line with the agreed programme budget(s). Contract and manage the relationships with service providers‟ and other third party organizations based on the defined terms of reference set out in contract. Pay service providers and grant recipients according to agreed milestones. Report accordingly to agreed requirements attached to the funds under management.

All personal data and information regarding contracts is maintained in a secure database system managed by the SSN Trust. Copies of contracts, terms of reference, personal details, due diligence information is uploaded into the system for recording keeping purposes. All copies may be electronic however the SSN Trust is required to hold hard copies of all contracts signed with prospective grant

recipients.

With specific reference to the due diligence procedures for prospective grant recipients under the Community Adaptation SGF project; two mechanisms will be used to manage finance and project management risks. These two mechanisms are the Community Adaptation SGF Finance Assessment and the Community Adaptation SGF Finance Questionnaire.

The Community Adaptation SGF Finance Assessment: Once a project concept has been approved, prospective grant recipients would be required to submit a Financial Assessment attached to their full project application to the EE. This Financial Assessment would consist of a questionnaire completed by the prospective grant recipients with the assistance of the Facilitating Agency (if required). The Financial Assessment would look to determine if there are any conditions that need to be placed upon the prospective grant recipient once an approval of an application is received. Additionally, the Financial Assessment will be used as a management tool by the EE to execute its grant management cycles and procedures according to the risk profile/rank presented by the specific grant recipient.

The Community Adaptation SGF Finance Questionnaire: In addition prospective grant recipients will be required to submit a Finance Questionnaire which will be the primary information source for the required due diligence procedures. Within the Finance Questionnaire, prospective grant recipients will be required to provide specific details regarding their designated contact point for the purposes of the grant, general background information, specific details regarding their internal controls, information regarding their accounting system, mechanisms for managing funds and any details of procedures for independent audit. This Financial Questionnaire requires the prospective grant recipients to submit supporting documents for certain sections and requires the authorized personnel to confirm the accuracy of the information provided by signature.

With regards to paying grant recipients and service providers from the accounts under management, the Trust‟s Contract Office will follow standard operating procedures whereby: The Trustees pre-authorise payments to grant recipients and service providers based on a schedule of milestones and expected payments prepared by the Trust‟s Contract Office. The EE‟s project manager and the Facilitating Agency‟s personnel work in close collaboration to monitor the performance of the grant recipients. The Trust‟s Contract Office General Manager will require written confirmation via email from the EE‟s project manager that a grantee has met the standards for a milestone before payment is made. This is known as “sign off” and is required for all payments. Every effort will be made to pay contractors within 14 days of receipt of sign off on a payment. Bank charges charged by the grant recipients‟ banking institution will be for the grant recipients‟ account.

Furthermore, in relation to management of accounts, it should be noted that the SSN Trust: Requires dual signatures of authorized personnel all bank accounts. The recommendation to pay service providers is made by the EE‟s project manager to the Trust‟s General Manager. The Financial Manager processes the payment on instruction from the General Manager.

B. Describe the measures for financial and project risk management.

Financial and project risks and associated management measures will be assessed as an on-going process throughout the project. The primary financial, project and institutional risks, their significance and associated response measures are described in Table 10 below. The appropriate response measures are further detailed below the table.

Table 10: Financial, project and institutional risks.

Risk Response measure The Financial and Procurement Manager will closely monitor the USD: ZAR exchange rate and communicate Fluctuations in exchange rate any implications to the Project Manager so that project (USD: ZAR) which could affect management can be adaptive. The EE will collaborate the funding available for Medium closely with the NIE should exchange rates fluctuate to the implementation and lead to extent that budget reallocations are required. In this event, budgetary constraints. budget reallocations shall be made in such a way that the achievements of project outcomes are compromised as little as possible. The SSN Trust Contracts Office has a number of measures in place to deal with financial risks. See Section III.A. In

Ineffective management of project summary, the Financial and Procurement Manager will funds affects project Low work together with the Project Manager to ensure implementation. appropriate management of project funds. In addition, NIE oversight and account audits will ensure that there is Financial effective use of project funds. Delays in the disbursement of funds, procurement and The NIE, EE and Facilitating Agencies will work closely to institutional inefficiencies (e.g. ensure optimum conditions for timely disbursement of lengthy approval processes) Low funds contracting, monitoring and financial reporting. Key result in delayed recruitment of project staff will be in place prior to the project inception project staff and hence project meeting. implementation. A critical path analysis and monitoring through the pre- and Delayed implementation and post-contract phases will support timely implementation completion of small grant projects Low and completion of small grant projects, to the extent that is due to unanticipated events possible. The involvement of the Facilitating Agencies with the local communities, through the participatory VA process conducted during the detailed design phase, and through the capacity building which will take place during implementation, has and will highlight the benefits of climate resilience to local communities and small grant recipients. To date local communities and local institutions (i.e. potential small grant recipients) have expressed great support for and interest in applying for small grants under the Community Adaptation SGF.

Lack of incentives for local The extensive stakeholder engagement undertaken to date

communities and small grant has initiated a sense of ownership in the projects, which

recipients to apply for small respond to community requests, from the outset. A number grants, initially, and failure to Low of grant recipient and project criteria have been included to

Project create ownership of the projects ensure ownership of the small grant projects at the at the community level once the community level. These include: i) preference given to small grants are awarded. grant recipients that have established long-standing relationships with communities in the Namakwa or Mopani District Municipality; ii) grant recipients requiring a clear mandate from project beneficiaries to work in the project target areas on the identified project activities; and iii) projects being supported by anticipated beneficiaries and local stakeholders. The Facilitating Agencies, with assistance from technical experts as required, will support local communities and small grant recipients during the small grant project development and implementation phases to ensure that interventions are managed and sustained.

Intensive participatory measures have ensured that both social (captured by engagement with stakeholders when developing the VA‟s) and environmental (captured by Small grant projects under the scientific research via LTAS climate analyses) identified Investment Windows fail Low considerations have been taken into account in identifying to build climate resilience in Investment Windows. The small grant projects under the vulnerable, local communities. Investment Windows therefore will respond to the most urgent climate risks, whilst at the same time addressing community priorities, thereby building climate resilience. The stakeholder mapping that took place during the detailed design phase in both project target areas, and the Poor coordination with other existing networks of the locally-based Facilitating Agencies, climate change projects in the will ensure that small grants projects that are funded by the focal areas limits the potential to Medium Community Adaptation SGF learn from and build on the learn from and build on the experience of local projects. This will also serve to avoid experiences of related projects. overlap between similar endeavors, and ensure that projects deliver complementary and mutually reinforcing outcomes.

The grant recipients will all have experience in coordinating, implementing and delivering outputs. This will be ensured through the inclusion of the following grant recipient criteria: i) grant recipients must be South African Limited capacity of grant institutions with proven relevant implementation Institutional recipients to coordinate and Low experience; and ii) grant recipients must have a sound deliver project outputs. track record of good governance, delivery of grant commitments and financial management. Further, specific capacity building interventions are built into the project that will support small grant recipients to coordinate deliver the anticipated project outputs. Structured governance and implementation arrangements Project governance structures fail will ensure that roles and responsibilities by the EE, to perform efficiently and Low Facilitating Agencies, Local Reference Groups and NIE are effectively. clear and will be carried out efficiently and effectively.

C. Describe the measures for environmental and social risk management, in line with the Environmental and Social Policy of the Adaptation Fund.

Based on a pre-screening against the stipulated principles in the AF ESP, the Community Adaptation SGF and the (at least) 12 projects will be in Category B i.e. projects with possible but limited anticipated adverse environmental or social impacts. However, rather than adverse impacts, the project is anticipated to have numerous economic, social and environmental benefits (see Section II.B for a summary of such benefits). The AF ESP checklist and comment per principle is presented in Section II.K. This checklist will form part of the criteria used to assess project concepts and detailed project proposals, as per the process described in Section II.A and in Annex VI. Therefore, all projects will be screened for environmental and social impacts by the Facilitating Agency and Local Reference Group at the project concept stage, and by the Facilitating Agency (through support to the grant recipients developing detailed project proposals) and three reviewers (one of which will be the EE) at the detailed project proposal stage. The PSC will sign-off on all recommendations at project concept and detailed project proposal stage, and will ensure that no projects with significant adverse environmental and social impacts are funded through the Community Adaptation SGF. The EE will be responsible for monitoring project social and environmental risk as per process outlined in Annex VI, and for guiding the PSC to take remedial action if required.

D. Describe the monitoring and evaluation arrangements and provide a budgeted M&E plan.

The project will be monitored through the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) activities described below. The M&E budget is provided in Table 11.

Project Start-up A Project Inception Workshop will be held within the first month of project start with those with assigned roles in the project organisation structure. The main purpose of the inception workshop will be to inform relevant stakeholders about the project so that they: Fully understand and take ownership of the project. This will include detailing the roles, support services and complementary responsibilities of NIE staff vis-à-vis the project team. Discuss the roles, functions, and responsibilities within the project's decision-making structures, including reporting and communication lines, and conflict resolution mechanisms. The Terms of Reference (ToR) for project staff will also be discussed. Based on the project results framework finalise the first annual work plan. Review and agree on the indicators, targets and their means of verification, and recheck assumptions and risks. Provide a detailed overview of reporting, M&E requirements. The M&E work plan and budget will be agreed and scheduled. Discuss financial reporting procedures and obligations, and arrangements for the annual audit. Agree on the ToR for the PSC and plan and schedule the PSC meetings. Roles and responsibilities of all project organisation structures will be clarified and meetings planned. The first PSC meeting will be held within the first 6 months following the inception workshop.

An Inception Workshop report will be prepared and shared with participants to formalize various agreements and plans decided during the meeting.

Small Grant Project Monitoring and Reporting Each approved small grant recipient will define a set of measurable indicators against which they will report progress, and will establish baselines for these indicators. In addition to quantitative reporting, it is envisaged that qualitative reporting will form an important component of Community Adaptation SGF reporting processes. These will be supported by the Facilitating Agencies and used to capture learning and insights that will inform overall project learning.

Quarterly and Six-monthly – overall project Progress will be monitored quarterly via quarterly financial reports and six-monthly performance reports that are submitted to and collated by the EE and submitted to the NIE. These will align with the agreed annual project work plan and will include qualitative, quantitative and financial information. Grantees will also report on financial progress quarterly, and this information will be compiled by the Facilitating Agencies for inclusion in the EE reports.

The EE will develop quarterly and six-reporting templates that will be used for all project reporting.

Quarterly and Six-monthly – small grant recipients Facilitating Agencies will undertake site visits to each of the projects once every quarter. These site visits will support project implementation and management as well as financial and performance reporting processes. During these visits, the Facilitating Agencies will support all grant recipients to submit their quarterly financial reports and 6 monthly progress reports. All reports will be reviewed by the Facilitating Agencies, who will compile summary reports in a format prescribed by the EE. The EE will receive all information, review it and include relevant components for reporting to the NIE.

On-line reporting The project will investigate building onto an online reporting system for small grants to facilitate this process.

Annually Annual Project Implementation Reports will be prepared by the EE and submitted to the NIE in order to monitor progress made since project start and in particular for the previous reporting period (30 June to 1 July).

The Annual Project Implementation Reports shall include, but not limited to, reporting on the following: Progress made toward project objective and project outcomes - each with indicators, baseline data and end-of-project targets (cumulative). Project outputs delivered per project outcome (annual). Lessons learned/good practice. Expenditure reports.

Risks and adaptive management.

A report template for the Annual Project Implementation Report will be prepared by the NIE in consultation with the AF Secretariat.

The EE will also be responsible for conducting annual audits of the Community Adaptation SGF. This is budgeted for as part of the EE fee.

Periodic learning throughout the project The project has been designed to support learning platforms at various levels throughout the project implementation period. These will be used to track project progress and to adapt interactively as required. They will also form an important platform for formulating policy recommendations for sustaining, replicating and scaling up positive project outcomes.

Periodic Monitoring through site visits The NIE will conduct visits to project sites based on the agreed schedule in the project's Inception Report/Annual Work Plan to assess first hand project progress.

Mid-term of project cycle The project will undergo an independent Mid-Term Evaluation at the mid-point of project implementation. The Mid-Term Evaluation will be commissioned by the EE and will determine progress being made toward the achievement of outcomes and will identify course correction if needed. It will focus on the effectiveness, efficiency and timeliness of project implementation, will highlight issues requiring decisions and actions and will present initial lessons learned about project design, implementation and management. Findings of this review will be incorporated as recommendations for enhanced implementation during the final half of the project‟s term. The organization, terms of reference and timing of the mid-term evaluation will be decided after consultation between the parties to the project document. The Terms of Reference for this Mid-term evaluation will be prepared by the NIE based on guidance from the AF.

End of Project An independent Final Evaluation that is commissioned by the EE will take place three months prior to project closure and will be undertaken in accordance with NIE guidance. The final evaluation will focus on the delivery of the project‟s results as initially planned (and as corrected after the mid-term evaluation, if any such correction took place). The final evaluation will look at impact and sustainability of results, including the contribution to capacity development and the achievement of global environmental benefits/goals. The Terms of Reference for this evaluation will be prepared by the NIE based on guidance from the AF.

The Terminal Evaluation will also provide recommendations for follow-up activities and requires a management response.

During the last three months, the project team will prepare the Project Terminal Report. This comprehensive report will summarize the results achieved (objectives, outcomes, outputs), lessons learned, problems met and areas where results may not have been achieved. It will also lay out recommendations for any further steps that may need to be taken to ensure sustainability and replicability of the project‟s results.

Monitoring and Evaluation work plan and budget

The indicative M&E workplan and budget are set out in the table below. It should be noted that the costs that are included in this table are part and parcel of the Total Budget and workplan, and not additional to it.

Table 11: M&E activities, responsibilities, budget and time frame.

Budget USD Type of M&E activity Responsible Parties Excluding project Time frame team staff time Inception Workshop and EE PM Indicative cost: USD Within first months of Report NIE 2,000 project start up USD 57,142 Facilitating Agency and (operating costs) EE site visits

Facilitating Agency, EE Quarterly USD 40,000 Quarterly and Six-monthly (Facilitating Agency reports staff time) Periodic status/ progress reports Quarterly, Annually and EE PM and EE Contracts USD 76,190 at least three months Annual project Office (EE staff time) before the end of the implementation report NIE project

Project Terminal Report EE PM and EE Contracts Office Indicative cost: At the mid-point of Mid-term Evaluation NIE USD 28,571 project implementation. External Consultants (i.e. evaluation team) EE PM and EE Contracts Office, At least three months Indicative cost : Final Evaluation NIE before the end of project USD 28,571 External Consultants (i.e. implementation evaluation team) EE PM and EE Contracts Audits Office USD 19,048 Yearly NIE NIE and NIE SC visits to NIE Paid for with NIE Yearly field sites Government representatives fees EE PM and EE Contracts Ongoing and at annual Office. M&E and Knowledge events that will take FAs and small grant USD 34,285 Exchange Forums place over the life of the recipients project NIE TOTAL indicative COST USD 285,807 Excluding NIE costs

*Note: Costs included in this table are part and parcel of the Total Budget and Workplan, and not additional to it.

E. Include a results framework for the project, including milestones, targets and indicators.

Indicator Baseline Target Means of verification

1. Number of vulnerable Pre- and end-of-project gender- community members in sensitive assessment of project target areas with 1. 0 women and 0 men. 1. 300 women and 300 men. representative sample of project reduced risk to extreme beneficiaries. weather events. 2. Number of small grant Objective: Increase climate Pre- and end-of-project recipients with increased 2. At least 12 small grant resilience in production 2. 0 small grant recipients. assessment of small grant capacity to implement climate recipients. landscapes and socio-economic recipients. systems in vulnerable change adaptation projects. communities in two pilot District 3. Number of policy briefs Municipalities in South Africa, presented to South African by working directly with local National Treasury and stakeholders and anticipated domestic Green Fund beneficiaries through a small reflecting on experiences of the Community Adaptation granting mechanism. 3. 0 policy briefs. 3. 1 policy brief. Review of policy brief. SGF and informing appropriate actions with a view to creating a climate adaptation finance mechanism that supports local level responses. Outcome 1: Small grants support concrete adaptation Number of vulnerable measures that strengthen Pre- and end-of-project gender- community members with livelihood strategies, adaptive sensitive assessment of reduced risk to climate-driven 0 women and 0 men. 300 women and 300 men. capacity and ecosystem representative sample of project impacts as a result of project resilience in vulnerable beneficiaries. interventions. communities in two district municipalities in South Africa.

1. Number of agricultural adaptation assets: 0 livestock shelters; number of livestock 0 ha under improved soil To be determined as small grant shelters; management; projects are approved, and area (ha) under improved 0 ha under improved Review of small grant project finalised on submission of first soil management; agroforestry; and reports, field inspections. NIE report to the AF at the end area (ha) under improved 0 ha of improved drought of Year 1. agroforestry; and resistant crops. area (ha) of improved drought resistant crops. 2. Number of livelihood adaptation assets: Output 1.1: Adaptation assets 0 communal market facilities; number of communal strengthened through the 0 cooling facilities for food To be determined as small grant implementation of at least 12 market facilities; projects are approved, and traders; Review of small grant project small grants (approximately number of cooling facilities finalised on submission of first 0 shelters for vegetable reports, field inspections. USD 100,000 each) disbursed for food traders; NIE report to the AF at the end production; and to at least 12 local institutions in number of shelters for of Year 1. the Mopani and Namakwa vegetable production; and 0 savings groups. District Municipalities. number of savings groups. 3. Number of settlement adaptation assets: 0 houses with improved number of houses with insulation; improved insulation; 0 ha with improved coastal To be determined as small grant area (ha) with improved projects are approved, and storm protection; Review of small grant project coastal storm protection; finalised on submission of first 0 improved river crossings; reports, field inspections. number of improved river NIE report to the AF at the end and crossings; and of Year 1. 0 ha of rehabilitated wetlands area (ha) of rehabilitated and riparian systems. wetlands and riparian systems.

Outcome 2: Small grant Number of small grant recipients and associated recipients with increased institutions are empowered to Pre- and end-of-project capacity to implement At least 12 small grant identify response measures to 0 small grant recipients. assessment of small grant adaptation projects that address recipients. climate-induced vulnerabilities, recipients. risks to extreme weather and implement relevant climate events. change adaptation projects.

Output 2.1: At least 12 local 1. Number of small grant 1. At least 10 small grant Review of small grant project institutions in the Mopani and recipients with women within 1. 0 small grant recipients. recipients. reports. Namakwa Districts are the management structures.

supported to develop small Review of detailed project grant projects for local-level proposals from small grant 2. Number of small grant adaptation 2. At least 8 small grant recipients (highlighting recipients new to climate 2. 0 small grant recipients. recipients. management structures and change adaptation. previous climate change adaptation experience). 3. Number of small grant 3. At least 8 small grant Review of small grant project 3. 0 small grant recipients. recipients lead by civil society. recipients. reports. 4. Number of small grant recipients with civil society 4. At least 12 small grant Review of small grant project 4. 0 small grant recipients. within the management recipients. reports. structures. Output 2.2: At least 12 local institutions in the Mopani and Namakwa Districts are Number of project site visits by 0 site visits. 192 site visits. Review of site visit reports. supported to implement Facilitating Agents. integrated climate adaptation responses. Outcome 3: A methodology for enhancing direct access to Review of relevant documents, climate finance is developed, Number of methodologies for including policy briefs, case based on lessons learned, enhanced direct access to 0 methodologies. 1 methodology. studies and training session providing recommendations for climate finance. summary reports. scaling up and replicating in South Africa and beyond. Number of training sessions to Output 3.1: Training build local community capacity Review of training materials and opportunities are provided for in inter alia climate change 0 training sessions. 10 training sessions. training session summary small grant recipients adaptation and financial reports. management skills. Output 3.2: Local networks for Number of fora for grant reducing climate change recipients to share experiences Review of proceedings/ vulnerability and risk reduction 0 fora. At least 4 fora. at inter- and intra-Municipal summary reports from fora. are developed, expanded and levels. strengthened 1. Number of fora where project 1. At least 6 fora (4 local, 1 Output 3.3: Case studies and outcomes and relevant policy Review of proceedings/ 1. 0 fora. national and 1 international policy recommendations are recommendations are summary reports from fora. fora). developed for reflecting on, presented. replicating and scaling up small 1. Number of case studies grant financing approaches capturing beneficiary and 2. 0 case studies. 2. At least 8 case studies. Review of case studies. grantee experiences

F. Demonstrate how the project aligns with the Results Framework of the Adaptation Fund

Grant Amount Project Objective Project Objective Indicator Fund Outcome Fund Outcome Indicator (USD)

Number of vulnerable community members in project target areas with reduced risk to extreme weather events. Outcome 2: Strengthened institutional capacity to reduce risks 2.2. Number of people with reduced associated with climate-induced Increase climate resilience in risk to extreme weather events. socioeconomic and environmental production landscapes and socio- Number of grant recipients with losses. economic systems in vulnerable increased capacity to implement communities in two pilot District adaptation projects that address Municipalities in South Africa, by risks to extreme weather events. 2,442,681 working directly with local stakeholders and anticipated Number of policy briefs presented beneficiaries through a small to South African National Treasury granting mechanism. and domestic Green Fund reflecting on experiences of the Outcome 7: Improved policies and 7. Climate change priorities are Community Adaptation SGF and regulations that promote and integrated into national informing appropriate actions with a enforce resilience measures. development strategy. view to creating a climate adaptation finance mechanism that supports local level responses. Grant Amount Project Outcomes Project Outcome Indicators Fund Output Fund Output Indicators (USD) Small grants support concrete adaptation measures that Output 6: Targeted individual and 6.1.1. No. and type of adaptation Number of vulnerable community strengthen livelihood strategies, community livelihood strategies assets (physical as well as members with reduced risk to adaptive capacity and ecosystem strengthened in relation to climate knowledge) created in support of 1,542,000 climate-driven impacts as a result resilience in vulnerable change impacts, including individual- or community-livelihood of project interventions. communities in two District variability. strategies. Municipalities in South Africa. Small grant recipients and associated institutions are Output 2.1: Strengthened capacity 2.1.1. No. of staff trained to empowered to identify response Number of grant recipients with of national and regional centres respond to, and mitigate impacts of, measures to climate inducted increased capacity to implement 325,000 and networks to respond rapidly to climate-related events. vulnerabilities, and implement climate change adaptation projects. extreme weather events. relevant climate change adaptation projects. A methodology for enhancing Number of methodologies for Output 7: Improved integration of 7.1. No., type, and sector of 189,000

direct access to climate finance is enhanced direct access to climate climate-resilience strategies into policies introduced or adjusted to developed, based on lessons finance. country development plans. address climate change risks. learned, providing recommendations for scaling up (Inclusion of a small grant financial and replicating in South Africa and instrument as a climate-resilient beyond. strategy at country level)

Alignment with Adaptation Fund Core Impact Indicators:

Adaptation Fund Core Impact Indicators Date of Report Project Title Taking adaptation to the ground: A Small Grants Facility for enabling local level responses to climate change Country South Africa Implementing Agency South African National Biodiversity Institute Project Duration 4 years Adjusted target first year of Baseline Target at project approval Actual at completion implementation “Number of Beneficiaries” (absolute number) Direct beneficiaries 0 600 supported by the project Female direct beneficiaries 0 300 Youth direct beneficiaries 0 200 Indirect beneficiaries 41 0 1,740 supported by the project Female indirect beneficiaries 0 910 Youth indirect beneficiaries 0 273

41 Based on, for each of the project target districts, the average number of members per household in 2007 in the two districts; the male: female ration in 2007; and the average number of youth (15- 24) in 2007.

G. Include a detailed budget with budget notes, a budget on the Implementing Entity management fee use, and an explanation and a breakdown of the execution costs.

Project Components, Outputs and Activities USD Budget notes Component 1: Small grants to vulnerable communities deliver tangible and sustainable 1,542,000 benefits 1.1 Adaptation assets strengthened through the implementation of at least 12 small grants (approximately USD 100,000 each) are disbursed to at least 12 local institutions in the Mopani and Namakwa District Municipalities Draw down expertise of experts as needed, include sectoral and safeguard experts. Where possible, this input will be provided by government sector Review experts, including safeguard expertise 42,000 departments with no costs to the project. External M&E is part of the EE budget. This expertise will be available over the duration of the project.

Contract small grant recipients to implement at 12 small grants of approx. USD 100,000 each. Up least 12 small grants of approx. USD 100,000 1,500,000 to 16 grants may be awarded. each. Up to 16 grants may be awarded.

Component 2: Local institutions empowered to identify and implement adaptation response 325,000 measures

2.1 At least 12 local institutions in the Mopani and Namakwa Districts are supported to develop small grant projects for local-level adaptation

Issue call for proposals 4,762 Costs of advertising Convene briefing sessions in each district 3,810 Operating costs for briefing sessions Conduct capacity building workshops to support Operating costs for capacity building sessions. Staff 9,046 project development time covered elsewhere.

Namakwa Facilitating Agency (CSA) staff time: Screen concepts, make recommendations to EE, Part of 50% time of Namakwa Programme Convene project development work sessions with Manager, 40% M&E assistant, 8 days Regional small grant recipients, support project 80,112 Director (for year 1, adjusted to 30% of programme development, support local review processes, visit manager for year 2 - 4, and 3 days for Regional and support small grant recipients, on-going Director). mentoring support.

Mopani Facilitating Agency staff time: Screen concepts, make recommendations to EE, Convene project development work sessions with small grant 80,000 Mopani Facilitating Agency staff - breakdown TBC recipients, support project development, support local review processes, visit and support small grant recipients, on-going mentoring support.

Includes at least 5 days CSA policy director per year; may include CCA expertise for the Facilitating Obtain inputs from relevant experts to support 20,477 Agency for Mopani if the identified institution does Facilitating Agencies project development not have this competency. CSA may support both Districts in relevant expertise areas.

2.2 At least 12 local institutions in the Mopani and Namakwa Districts are supported to implement integrated climate adaptation responses

Provide on-going mentoring support (Facilitating Budgeted above as part of Facilitating Agency staff 0 Agencies) time Visit all small grant recipients quarterly (Facilitating Travel costs (mileage) - based on quarterly visits to 38,095 Agencies) each project by the Facilitating Agency staff Subsistence, accommodation. For quarterly project Visit all small grant recipients quarterly (Facilitating site visits. Budgeted at USD 95 per project per 19,048 Agencies) quarter; USD 38 accommodation and 2x USD 29 daily per diem)

Support small grant recipients to complete quarterly Budgeted above as part of Facilitating Agency staff financial and 6-monthly progress reports and 0 time submit to the EE in appropriate formats.

Provide feedback and on-going support to small Budgeted above as part of Facilitating Agency staff 0 grant recipients time Office equipment 4,888 Office equipment (laptop etc.) Telecoms, licensing, rental – USD 476 per District Office running costs (telecoms, licensing, rental) 45,714 office per month Admin fee Facilitating Agencies (contribution Contribution towards admin, financial and related 19,048 towards admin, financial and related support) support for each of the Facilitating Agency offices Component 3: Lessons learned facilitate future scaling up and replication of small grant- 189,000 financing approaches 3.1 Training opportunities provided for small grant recipients

Undertake training needs assessments for each Facilitating Agencies possibly with support of district, based on the needs of the small grant 9,523 external consultants, for each district, on-going recipients, and commission training

EE and Facilitating Agency staff and consultants for Develop training materials and undertake training. training events and material production. Five Basic CCA, Gender and CC training, financial 57,143 training sessions in each area over course of the management are likely subject areas project costing approximately USD 5,714 each. 3.2 Local networks for reducing climate change vulnerability and risk reduction developed, expanded and strengthened Convene an annual forum for small grant recipients 11,429 One forum in each area in years 1 and 2 to share experiences Convene two fora over the project lifetime where Mopani and Namakwa small grant recipients, as Two joint fora that bring all small grant recipients from both areas, as well as stakeholders from well as stakeholders from neighbouring and 22,857 neighbouring and other districts and municipalities, other districts and municipalities, come together in each of years 3 and 4 together.

Set up and maintenance of social media platform, part time of staff member from the EE or one of the Create a social media platform for small grant Facilitating Agencies. A project website/ Facebook recipients to share lessons and experiences and 9,905 page with informal blogs and a mechanism to provide each other with support upload project outputs is envisaged. Aligned with on-going CDKN programme of work where possible.

Independent consultants, processes to be Conduct independent learning processes to reflect undertaken in conjunction with annual learning fora 26,667 on implementation and develop insights so as to benefit from the opportunity of small grant recipients being together

3.3 Case studies and policy recommendations developed for reflecting on, replicating and scaling up small grant financing approaches

Capture learnings and produce case studies on EE or Facilitating Agency staff or consultants in 28,571 local-level best practice and challenges years 2, 3 and 4. Disseminate information on the adaptation actions supported through local and national media 0 Co-financed through existing programmes of work channels

EE or Facilitating Agency staff or consultants over life time of project. Allocated funds are for the Develop and present project outcomes and elucidation and production of policy relevant policy recommendations at local, national 22,905 recommendations - attendance at fora, and fora especially at international fora, would need to be co- financed through other programmes of work.

EE, Facilitating Agencies and NIE to work with their university networks to identify post graduate Establish linkages with tertiary institutions students who will track the Community Adaptation SGF project as part of their studies Total Components Cost 2,056,000

Project Execution cost (9.5%) 195,320 48,762 SSN Project Manager 56,173 SSN Trust Contracts Office contribution 14,194 Mopani & Namakwa site visits 19,048 Project audits 57,143 Programme M&E Total Project Cost 2,251,320 Project Management Fee charged by the Project Management Fee charged by the 191,362 Implementing Entity (8.5%) Implementing Entity (8.5%) Amount of Financing Requested 2,442,682

Implementing Entity budget

Category Budget notes Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 USD

Staff salaries (or part thereof) for Management finance, procurement, admin 28,705 28,704 28,704 28,704 114,817 and project management staff Travel, S&T, workshop and catering costs associated with Operating costs project oversight, governance 11,960 11,960 11,960 11,960 47,840 activities and M&E supervision function Costs associated with the provision of equipment to the Equipment NIE secretariat including 3,827 3,827

computers and associated peripherals Auditing and Costs for external consulting consulting services, notably external audits 3,349 3,349 3,349 3,348 13,395 services and other technical support Printing, photocopying, telecoms Administration and other costs related to office 2,871 2,871 2,870 2,870 11,482 costs operations

H. Include a disbursement schedule with time-bound milestones.

Upon Agreement End of Year 1 End of Year 2 End of Year 3 End of Year 4 Total (USD) Signature Schedule Date November March 2016 March 2017 March 2018 March 2019 (Tentative) 2014 Project Funds (USD) 85,714 342,855 642,797 662,785 321,849 2,056,000 EE Fee (USD) 8,636 34,544 63,116 34,544 54,480 195,320 NIE Fee (USD) 7,978 31,911 59,828 61,689 29,956 191,362

PART IV: ENDORSEMENT BY GOVERNMENT AND CERTIFICATION BY THE IMPLEMENTING ENTITY

A. Record of endorsement on behalf of the government

Ms Nosipho Ngcaba, Date: July 30 2014 Director General, Department of Environmental Affairs

B. Implementing Entity certification

I certify that this proposal has been prepared in accordance with guidelines provided by the Adaptation Fund Board, and prevailing National Development and Adaptation Plans (The National Climate Change Response Policy White Paper, the National Development Plan, South Africa‟s 2nd National Communication to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) and subject to the approval by the Adaptation Fund Board, commit to implementing the project in compliance with the Environmental and Social Policy of the Adaptation Fund and on the understanding that the Implementing Entity will be fully (legally and financially) responsible for the implementation of this project/programme.

Dr Mandy Barnett Implementing Entity Coordinator

Date: August 1 2014 Tel. and email: +27 21 7998875; [email protected] Project Contact Person: Gigi Laidler Tel. And Email: +27 21 7998766; [email protected]

ANNEXES

I. Climate analysis Annex I.1 Historical trend figures from LTAS Zonal analysis Annex I.2 Analysis of downscaled climate model results for the areas of Mopani and Namakwa, South Africa, at the district municipality scale, ACDI draft report

II. Vulnerability Analyses Annex II.1 Vulnerability Assessment Greater Letaba and Greater Giyani Local Municipalities, draft report Annex II.2 Namakwa Profile Vulnerability Assessment

III. Letters of support Annex III.1 DEA request of support for the selection of the MDM as a pilot site Annex III.2 Municipal Manager letter of support of the MDM as a pilot site

IV. Attendance Registers Annex IV.1 Namakwa stakeholder workshop 13 February 2014 Annex IV.2 Mopani meeting to introduce the Community Adaptation SGF to the MDM 14 February 2014 Annex IV.3 Mopani meeting with MDM executive committee 07 March 2014 Annex IV.4 Mopani proposal development process workshop 03 April 2014 Annex IV.5 Mopani water vulnerability assessment workshop 10 April 2014 Annex IV.6 Mopani disaster management vulnerability assessment workshop 11 April 2014 Annex IV.7 Mopani extension officer vulnerability assessment workshop 14 April 2014 Annex IV.8 Letaba CDWs vulnerability assessment workshop 22 May 2014 Annex IV.9 Giyani CDWs vulnerability assessment workshop 26 May 2014 Annex IV.10 Mopani health vulnerability assessment workshop 28 May 2014 Annex IV.11 Mopani stakeholder workshop 13 June 2014

V. Discussion Document

VI. Community Adaptation Small Grant Facility Project Review, Oversight and Environmental and Social Risk Management Plan

VII. Other supporting documents Annex VI.1 Technical Note Annex VI.2 Call for expression of interest and NIE SC Task Team recommendation

76 ANNEXES

II. Vulnerability Analyses Annex II.1 Vulnerability Assessment Greater Letaba and Greater Giyani Local Municipalities, draft report Annex II.2 Namakwa Profile Vulnerability Assessment

III. Letters of support Annex III.1 DEA request of support for the selection of the MDM as a pilot site Annex III.2 Municipal Manager letter of support of the MDM as a pilot site

V. Discussion Document

VI. Community Adaptation Small Grant Facility Project Review, Oversight and Environmental and Social Risk Management Plan

VII. Other supporting documents Annex VI.1 Technical Note Annex VI.2 Call for expression of interest and NIE SC TT recommendation

Annex I: Climate analysis

Annex I.1 Historical trend figures from LTAS Zonal analysis1

1 Department of Environmental Affairs, 2013. Long-Term Adaptation Scenarios Research Programme (LTAS) for South Africa. Climate Trends and Scenarios for South Africa. Pretoria, South Africa.

Annex I.2 Analysis of downscaled climate model results for the areas of Mopani and Namakwa, South Africa, at the district municipality scale

LONG-TERM ADAPTATION SCENARIOS FLAGSHIP RESEARCH PROGRAMME (LTAS)

Analysis of downscaled climate model results for the areas of Mopani and Namakwa, South Africa, at the district municipality scale

African Climate & Development Initiative (ACDI) University of Cape Town (UCT)

Abridged Technical Report 30 July 2014

Christopher Brodrick*, Muhammad Rahiz and Mark New *[email protected]

CONTENTS

List of Figures ...... List of Abbreviations ...... Acknowledgements ...... 1. Introduction ...... 2. Executive summary ...... 2.1 Mopani ...... 2.2 Namakwa ...... 3. Regional climate ...... 3.1 Mopani ...... 3.1.1 Current climate ...... 3.1.2 Regional factors that may affect variations in climate ...... 3.2 Namakwa ...... 3.2.1 Current climate ...... 3.2.2 Regional factors that may affect variations in climate ...... 4. Data ...... 4.1 Statistically downscaled projections – CSAG ...... 4.2 Dynamically downscaled projections – CCAM ...... 5. Results ...... 5.1 Mopani ...... 5.1.1 2020s ...... 5.1.2 2050s ...... 5.1.3 2080s ...... 5.2 Namakwa ...... 5.2.1 2020s ...... 5.2.2 2050s ...... 5.2.3 2080s ...... References ...... Appendix A: Time-series and boxplots ...... A1 Interpretation ...... A1.1 Mopani ...... A1.2 Namakwa ...... Appendix B: Spatial plots ...... B1 Interpretation ...... B1.1 Mopani ...... B1.2 Namakwa ......

LIST OF FIGURES – PLEASE NOTE: Figures are not included in this abridged version, but are included in the full report, available on request from the NIE.

Figure A1.1.1: The annual anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Mopani ...... Figure A1.1.2: The DJF anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Mopani ...... Figure A1.1.3: The MAM anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Mopani ...... Figure A1.1.4: The JJA anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Mopani ...... Figure A1.1.5: The SON anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Mopani ...... Figure A1.2.6: The ANN anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Namakwa ...... Figure A1.2.7: The DJF anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Namakwa ...... Figure A1.2.8: The MAM anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Namakwa ...... Figure A1.2.9: The JJA anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Namakwa ...... Figure A1.2.10: The SON anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Namakwa ...... Figure B1.1.1.1a1: The maximum temperature anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Mopani ...... Figure B1.1.1.2a2: The minimum temperature anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Mopani ...... Figure B1.1.1.3a3: The precipitation anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Mopani ...... Figure B1.1.1.1b1: The maximum temperature anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Mopani ...... Figure B1.1.1.2b2: The minimum temperature anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Mopani ...... Figure B1.1.1.3b3: The precipitation anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Mopani ...... Figure B1.1.1.1a1: The maximum temperature anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Mopani ...... Figure B1.1.1.2a2: The minimum temperature anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Mopani ...... Figure B1.1.1.3a3: The precipitation anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Mopani ...... FigureB1.1.1.1b1: The maximum temperature anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Mopani ...... Figure B1.1.1.2b2: The minimum temperature anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Mopani ......

Figure B1.1.1.3b3: The precipitation anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Mopani ...... Figure B1.1.1.1a1: The maximum temperature anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Mopani ...... Figure B1.1.1.2a2: The minimum temperature anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Mopani ...... Figure B1.1.1.3a3: The precipitation anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Mopani ...... Figure B1.1.1.1b1: The maximum temperature anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Mopani ...... Figure B1.1.1.2b2: The minimum temperature anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Mopani ...... Figure B1.1.1.3b3: The precipitation anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Mopani ...... Figure B1.1.2.1a1: The maximum temperature anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Mopani ...... Figure B1.1.2.2a2: The minimum temperature anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Mopani ...... Figure B1.1.2.3a3: The precipitation anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Mopani ...... Figure B1.1.2.1b1: The maximum temperature anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Mopani ...... Figure B1.1.2.2b2: The minimum temperature anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Mopani ...... Figure B1.1.2.3b3: The precipitation anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Mopani ...... Figure B1.1.2.1a1: The maximum temperature anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Mopani ...... Figure B1.1.2.2a2: The minimum temperature anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Mopani ...... Figure B1.1.2.3a3: The precipitation anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Mopani ...... Figure B1.1.2.1b1: The maximum temperature anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Mopani ...... Figure B1.1.2.2b2: The minimum temperature anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Mopani ...... Figure B1.1.2.3b3: The precipitation anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Mopani ...... Figure B1.1.2.1a1: The maximum temperature anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Mopani ...... Figure B1.1.2.2a2: The minimum temperature anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Mopani ...... Figure B1.1.2.3a3: The precipitation anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Mopani ...... Figure B1.1.2.1b1: The maximum temperature anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Mopani ...... Figure B1.1.2.2b2: The minimum temperature anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Mopani ...... Figure B1.1.2.3b3: The precipitation anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Mopani ...... Figure B1.2.1.1a1: The maximum temperature anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Namakwa .... Figure B1.2.1.2a2: The minimum temperature anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Namakwa ..... Figure B1.2.1.3a3: The precipitation anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Namakwa ...... Figure B1.2.1.1b1: The maximum temperature anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Namakwa .... Figure B1.2.1.2b2: The minimum temperature anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Namakwa ..... Figure B1.2.1.3b3: The precipitation anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Namakwa ...... Figure B1.2.1.1a1: The maximum temperature anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Namakwa .... Figure B1.2.1.2a2: The minimum temperature anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Namakwa ..... Figure B1.2.1.3a3: The precipitation anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Namakwa ...... Figure B1.2.1.1b1: The maximum temperature anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Namakwa .... Figure B1.2.1.2b2: The minimum temperature anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Namakwa ..... Figure B1.2.1.3b3: The precipitation anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Namakwa ...... Figure B1.2.1.1a1: The maximum temperature anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Namakwa .... Figure B1.2.1.2a2: The minimum temperature anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Namakwa ..... Figure B1.2.1.3a3: The precipitation anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Namakwa ...... Figure B1.2.1.1b1: The maximum temperature anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Namakwa .... Figure B1.2.1.2b2: The minimum temperature anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Namakwa ..... Figure B1.2.1.3b3: The precipitation anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Namakwa ...... Figure B1.2.2.1a1: The maximum temperature anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Namakwa .... Figure B1.2.2.2a2: The minimum temperature anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Namakwa ..... Figure B1.2.2.3a3: The precipitation anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Namakwa ...... Figure B1.2.2.1b1: The maximum temperature anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Namakwa .... Figure B1.2.2.2b2: The minimum temperature anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Namakwa ..... Figure B1.2.2.3b3: The precipitation anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Namakwa ...... Figure B1.2.2.1a1: The maximum temperature anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Namakwa .... Figure B1.2.2.2a2: The minimum temperature anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Namakwa ..... Figure B1.2.2.3a3: The precipitation anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Namakwa ...... Figure B1.2.2.1b1: The maximum temperature anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Namakwa .... Figure B1.2.2.2b2: The minimum temperature anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Namakwa ..... Figure B1.2.2.3b3: The precipitation anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Namakwa ...... Figure B1.2.2.1a1: The maximum temperature anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Namakwa .... Figure B1.2.2.2a2: The minimum temperature anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Namakwa ..... Figure B1.2.2.3a3: The precipitation anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Namakwa ...... Figure B1.2.2.1b1: The maximum temperature anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Namakwa .... Figure B1.2.2.2b2: The minimum temperature anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Namakwa ..... Figure B1.2.2.3b3: The precipitation anomaly with respect to the model historical period – Namakwa ......

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ACDI African Climate & Development Initiative ANN Annual CCAM Conformal-Cubic Atmospheric Model CGCM Coupled Global Circulation Model CSAG Climate System Analysis Group DJF December, January, February (Summer) ensmed Median of the model ensemble ens10 10th percentile of the model ensemble ens90 90th percentile of the model ensemble ENSO El Niño Southern Oscillation IOD Indian Ocean Dipole JJA June, July, August (Winter) LTAS Long-Term Adaptation Scenarios Flagship Research Programme MAM March, April, May (Autumn) RCP4.5 Representative Concentration Pathway, radiative forcing of 4.5W/m2 RCP8.5 Representative Concentration Pathway, radiative forcing of 8.5W/m2 rnd24 Total precipitation in a 24 hour period SAHP South Atlantic High Pressure SAM Southern Annual Mode SON September, October, November (Spring) SST Sea surface temperatures TC Tropical cyclone tmax Maximum temperature tmin Minimum temperature TTT Tropical-temperate trough UCT University of Cape Town 2020s 2015-2035 (short-term future) 2050s 2040-2060 (medium-term future) 2080s 2075-2095 (long-term future)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The African Climate & Development Initiative (ACDI) wish to thank the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) for the provision of the Conformal-Cubic Atmospheric Model (CCAM) data, and the Climate System Analysis Group (CSAG) for the provision of the statistically downscaled CSAG data. Thank you to the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) for providing GIS data.

1. INTRODUCTION

This technical report presents an analysis of downscaled climate model results for the areas of Mopani and Namakwa, South Africa, at the district municipality scale. Future climates are presented for the regions for the short (2020s), medium (2050s) and long (2080s) term futures, as well as for the two emission scenarios, RCP4.5 and RCP8.5.

The climate projection data is visualised by means of graphs and maps. Both regions are summarised – for maximum temperature, minimum temperature, and precipitation – for each time period.

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The CSAG and CCAM projection results, for both the emission scenarios, and all three of the time periods, can be summarised as follows:

For both regions, it is clear that there is less uncertainty in the temperature projections than the precipitation projections. All approaches show a distinct warming trend, growing stronger towards the end of the 21st Century. In general, there is a tendency for stronger increases in maximum temperatures than for minimum temperatures. The RCP4.5 emission pathway (mitigation) results indicate that extreme warming trends and significant precipitation changes can largely be avoided, especially towards the end of the century.

Many of the projected changes fall within the range of historical natural variability, and – especially in the long-term – the inherent uncertainty is high.

2.1 Mopani

As mentioned above, appreciable warming over the area is projected, in line with the recent historical climatology. In the short-term future, temperature rises will be in the range of 1-2°C, with greater warming in Summer than in the other seasons. The north, and to a lesser extent the west, is projected to warm more than the south, and east. Mid-term sees warming between 1 and 3°C, again more in the west than the east, and particularly in Spring. For the long-term future, warming in the region of between 2 and 5°C is projected, particularly in the south and in Winter, with less warming in the central regions in Autumn. The RCP8.5 emission pathway (no mitigation) results indicate very significant warming in the long-term future – up to 6°C.

Precipitation projections are less clear. In the short-term, a weak annual wetting trend is shown, especially in the east, with more robust evidence of wetting in Autumn. In the Summer and Winter months, however, weak drying is projected, mostly in the north-east and west respectively. In the Autumn of mid-term, the south-east is set to receive slightly more precipitation, whereas in Summer, the north and east are projected to become drier. With the exception of Winter, the long-term future is projected to dry more in the north than the south.

Please refer to Appendices A and B for a full suite of the visualised data for the Mopani region.

2.2 Namakwa

As with the Mopani region, temperature rises in the short-term future will be in the range of 1-2°C, with greater warming in Spring than in the other seasons. For all the seasons, there is a fairly strong warming bias to the north-east. Mid-term sees warming between 1 and 3°C, with greater warming in the east, particularly in Summer. Long-term sees warming between 2 and 5°C – particularly in Winter – with greater warming projected for the east than the west, across the seasons. Warming is generally less pronounced over the coastal areas of the region. That said, however, Namakwa appears to be more at risk of warming – particularly under RCP8.5 – relative to Mopani. The need for mitigation – and following as closely to the RCP4.5 pathway as possible – needs to be stressed.

For short-term precipitation, there is high variability within and between datasets. As with the Mopani region, weak annual wetting is projected, particularly to the east in Autumn, with a drying Summer.

The north-east is set to dry in Autumn, while the south-west is set to wet slightly. Mid-term shows weak wetting in Autumn, particularly in the south-west. In Spring and Summer, however, it is set to dry weakly and moderately respectively, especially in the south-west. In Autumn and Winter of the long- term, weak wetting is projected in the south-west, while weak drying is projected for the south-west in Spring and Summer.

Please refer to Appendices A and B for a full suite of the visualised data for the Mopani region.

3. REGIONAL CLIMATE

Both regions will be affected by water balance changes. Increasing temperature results in higher rates of evaporation, leading to changes in atmospheric water vapour concentrations and water vapour transport (Solomon et al. 2009). This effectively alters the hydrological cycle. Although the effects of this may not necessarily relate to large-scale changes in rainfall amounts and variability, higher evaporation rates will most likely result in decreased surface water – both spatially and temporally – which will impact agriculture in particular. Accordingly, hydrological risks are set to increase, especially under the RCP8.5 pathway, where much greater warming is expected.

3.1 Mopani

3.1.1 Current climate

The Mopani District Municipality falls into the Summer rainfall zone of South Africa. Summers are warm – mean maximum and minimum temperatures in the range of 28-38°C (mean of ~30°C), and 16-22°C (mean of ~19°C) respectively – and wet, with the majority of precipitation falling in mid- Summer. Winters are mild – mean maximum and minimum temperatures are in the region of 19-26°C (mean of ~23°C) and 5-11°C (mean of ~8°C) respectively – and dry.

Annual rainfall in the Mopani district varies between 400 and 900mm, largely as a result of the complex topography. To highlight this, Tzaneen – surrounded by large hills – receives mean annual precipitation of 881mm (SA Explorer – Tzaneen climate, 2014), while Giyani only 421mm (SA Explorer – Giyani climate, 2014). There is large interannual variability, with monthly maximum rainfall sometimes reaching 340mm, in comparison to the usual 50-100 monthly totals (FAO, n.d.) for the Summer months. Causes of this variability are described in Sect. 3.1.2 below.

3.1.2 Regional factors that may affect variations in climate

Southern African mean annual precipitation shows an interannual and quasi-decadal (circa 18-year) time-scale of variability (oscillation). Summer rainfall zones that are governed largely by mesoscale convective activity – such as Mopani – are particularly affected. The oscillation manifests itself by means of nine years of above average rainfall followed by nine years of below average rainfall (Tyson & Preston-Whyte, 2000:113).

Dry spells are characterised by greater spatial variability in precipitation, increased thunderstorm activity, and thus increased hail-fall frequencies. Wet spells are characterised by more even precipitation (Tyson & Preston-Whyte, 2000:113), both in nature and in spatial extent.

Tropical temperate troughs (TTTs) are responsible for much of the Summer rainfall in the region. TTTs usually form when a surface easterly low occurs in conjunction with an upper atmosphere westerly wave (van den Heever et al., 1997). Pohl et al. (2009) found that TTTs are modulated by the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). During an El Niño phase, atmospheric circulation in the Summer rainfall zone of South Africa is influenced sufficiently to shift rain-inducing processes away from the sub-continent (Pohl et al., 2009). Generally speaking, drought conditions are associated with El Niño. Conversely, during the La Nina phase, rain-inducing processes are enhanced, thus producing wetter than normal conditions, increasing the likelihood of heavy rainfall and flood events. ENSO is therefore responsible for appreciable interannual variability in the Summer rainfall zone of South Africa.

Summer rainfall is also linked to the Indian Ocean sea surface temperatures (SSTs). When the SSTs are anomalously high, dry Summer conditions follow (Rocha & Simmonds, 1997). Conversely, anomalously low SSTs precede wetter conditions. Goddard & Graham (1999) intimate that SST variability in the Pacific Ocean may be positively correlated to SST variability in the Indian Ocean. Hence, it is possible that the ENSO phase is linked to Indian Ocean SSTs.

The Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) is a mode of interannual variability that also manifests itself through changes in tropical ocean SST (Christensen et al., 2013). Anomalously warmer water in the east of the Indian Ocean results in cooler and drier conditions in the west (and thus, inter alia, the Limpopo Province), with the converse producing warmer and wetter conditions.

Climate change will increasingly affect ENSO, which in turn will influence the formation of TTTs, and Indian Ocean SSTs. Accordingly, it is possible that interannual variability in rainfall will increase further in this region. That said, the changes in the variation and spatial pattern of ENSO projected by climate models are very large, which means that there is low confidence in any particular projected change in variability (Christensen et al., 2013).

Related to SST are tropical cyclones (TCs). In recorded history, few TCs have penetrated South Africa. With the mean global increase of SSTs due to climate change, the 26°C isotherm (integral to the formation of TCs) is moving further south (Fitchett & Grab, 2014). Along with increased energy in the global atmospheric system, it is possible that these TCs may contribute towards heavy rainfall and flooding in the eastern parts of the Limpopo province, further exacerbating rainfall variability.

3.2 Namakwa

3.2.1 Current climate

The Namakwa District Municipality is very large – thus a single climate is difficult to characterise. The vast majority of the District falls into the Winter rainfall zone of South Africa, mostly receiving its rainfall from mid-latitude cyclones (cold fronts). It is not uncommon, however, for the extreme east of the District to experience thunderstorm-associated rainfall in the Summer months. Summers are hot – mean maximum and minimum temperatures in the range of 26-45°C (mean of ~30°C) and 12-20°C (mean of 17°C) respectively – and dry. Winters are cool – mean maximum and minimum temperatures are in the region of 10-25°C (mean of 17°C) and -8-12 (mean of 1°C) – and wet in places.

Namakwaland is classified as semi-desert, due to its low precipitation amounts. The mean annual rainfall in the Namakwa district varies between less than 100mm along the coastal belt to between 100 and 250mm inland. Much of Namakwaland is succulent Karoo, which receives low – but more importantly – largely predictable winter rainfall (Desmet & Cowling, 1999). Spatially, the largest factor affecting rainfall is the escarpment. On the coast, Port Nolloth only receives 50mm mean annual precipitation (SA Explorer – Port Nolloth climate, 2014), while just over the escarpment, Nieuwoudtville receives 245mm precipitation (SA Explorer – Nieuwoudtville climate, 2014).

3.2.2 Regional factors that may affect variations in climate

One of the principal modes of atmospheric circulation variability in the Southern Hemisphere (Marshall, 2003) is the Southern Annual Mode (SAM). The SAM describes the latitudinal movement of the westerly wind belt. Changes in this movement drive the intensity and position of mid-latitude cyclones (cold fronts), particularly affecting rainfall variability in the winter rainfall zone of South Africa (and thus, inter alia, Namakwaland).

The western interior of South Africa – which incorporates the Namakwa region – receives in excess of 80% of possible sunshine, in both Summer and Winter (Tyson & Preston-Whyte, 2000:82). This predisposition to solar radiation makes the region particularly sensitive to increasing temperatures, particularly maximum temperature. As mentioned above, the extreme eastern parts of the District can receive Summer rainfall linked to thunderstorm activity. Because total radiation directly affects cloud- producing weather systems (Tyson & Preston-Whyte, 2000:82), this region may receive increased rainfall from such systems in the Summer months.

In the future, Namakwaland is projected to experience changes in rainfall amounts, as well as increased variability in rainfall (Midgley & Thuiller, 2007). The South Atlantic High Pressure (SAHP) largely drives the Benguela current (Tyson & Preston-Whyte, 2000:178), which has an enormous influence on the climate of Namakwaland. Also linked to the SAHP is the West Coast Trough, which produces widespread rain over the western parts of South Africa, from early Summer to Autumn (Tyson & Preston-Whyte, 2000:201). Under current climate changes, increases in energy to the system may affect the SAHP, thus having a direct effect on the area‟s climate and particularly rain- producing systems.

As a result of a possibly strengthening SAHP, the frontal systems that provide the majority of Namakwaland with its Winter rainfall are projected to move further south, but also increase in intensity. This may result in fewer rainfall events, but with heavier rainfall during such events. This will further increase the variability of rainfall in the region.

It is important to note that climate models are not always able to accurately capture complex ocean- atmosphere interactions, and how these might change in the future. Many of the drivers of variability mentioned above are complex and there is much uncertainty as to how exactly they will respond to climate change in the future. Downscaling rainfall in particular is still limited by our understanding of these large-scale drivers of variability.

4. DATA

4.1 Statistically downscaled projections – CSAG

A statistical downscaling technique, downscaled to 0.5° by 0.5° resolution, has been applied for temperature and precipitation fields over the regions. This was done for both the RCP emission scenarios, for each one of a suite of ten different CGCMs.

4.2 Dynamically downscaled projections – CCAM

A dynamical downscaling technique, downscaled to 0.5° by 0.5° resolution, has been applied for temperature and precipitation fields over the regions. A three-model suite was used for RCP4.5, whilst a two-model suite was used for RCP8.5. Further CCAM model information, as well as its strengths and weaknesses, can be found in the previous LTAS report: Climate Trends and Scenarios for South Africa, LTAS Phase 1, Technical Report (no. 1 of 6).

The complex topography over small distance scales in the regions – particularly Mopani – must be taken into account when interpreting the model results. The downscaled regional models are unable to accurately resolve large changes in topography over small distance scales.

By way of example: In theory, Tzaneen (mean annual rainfall 881mm) and Giyani (mean annual rainfall 421mm) may fall into the same grid cell at the resolution used in this project (2.5 x 2.5°). Therefore, both sub-regions would share the same grid cell characteristics, whereas in the reality, their rainfall is rather different, due to the topography. This must be borne in mind when assessing the spatial results.

5. RESULTS

5.1 Mopani

5.1.1 2020s

5.1.1.1 Temperature

Annually, maximum temperature is projected to increase by between 1 and 2°C, and minimum temperature by 1°C. For maximum temperature, Summer is projected to warm more significantly than

the other seasons, especially in the north and west. The west is projected to experience greater maximum temperatures than the east.

5.1.1.2 Precipitation

Annually, a weak wetting trend is projected, much more so in the east. This is particularly evident in Autumn, which shows a strong trend of wetting, but is also accompanied by high variability within and between datasets. Summer and Winter, however, display weak drying trends, particularly in the north- east and west respectively.

5.1.2 2050s

5.1.2.1 Temperature

On an annual basis, maximum temperature is projected to increase by between 1 and 3°C, and minimum temperature by 2°C. For maximum temperature, Summer is projected to warm more significantly than the other seasons, particularly in the west, while for minimum temperature, Winter is projected to warm less significantly. Furthermore, both annually and in Spring, minimum temperature is set to rise more in the west than in the east. It is worth noting that for maximum temperature, CCAM RCP 8.5 dataset displays a large anomaly range, as well as greater absolute magnitude of anomaly.

5.1.2.2 Precipitation

There is no appreciable annual trend for precipitation. In Autumn, a moderate wetting trend is projected, particularly in the south-east, whereas in Spring and Summer there exists a weak drying trend, in the case of the latter, to the north and east. Winter shows very high variability between the datasets, some showing wetting and others drying.

5.1.3 2080s

5.1.3.1 Temperature

Annually, maximum temperature is projected to increase by between 2 and 5°C and minimum temperature by between 2 and 4°C. For the 2080s, the datasets begin to diverge appreciably from one another, with large anomaly ranges. In Winter, minimum temperature is projected to rise more significantly than the other seasons, particularly in the south. The central part of the region is projected to experience reduced warming in Autumn.

5.1.3.2 Precipitation

A weak drying trend is projected, on an annual basis. Summer, Spring and Autumn are projected to see more drying in the north than the south. Winter is set to dry moderately, with low variability between the datasets.

5.2 Namakwa

5.2.1 2020s

5.2.1.1 Temperature

Annually, maximum temperature is projected to increase by between 1 and 2°C, and minimum temperature by 1°C. For maximum temperature, Summer, Winter and Spring show a warming bias to the north-east; for minimum temperature, this holds true for all the seasons. In Autumn, maximum temperature is projected to rise less significantly than the other seasons, while in Spring, minimum temperature is projected to rise more significantly.

5.2.1.2 Precipitation

A weak wetting trend is projected on an annual basis, and particularly in the east in Autumn, where there is a fairly strong trend. Furthermore, the north east is set to dry in Autumn, while the south-west is projected to wet slightly.

In Summer, rainfall is projected to decrease slightly in some projections, while in others, increase slightly. It must be noted, however, that there is high variability within and between these datasets.

5.2.2 2050s

5.2.2.1 Temperature

On an annual basis, maximum temperature is projected to increase by between 1 and 3°C, and minimum temperature by 2°C. For both maximum and minimum temperature, Summer is projected to warm more significantly than the other seasons. There is a fairly strong trend of increased warming in the east, and to a lesser extent north-east, in all the seasons. 5.2.2.2 Precipitation

Annually, a very weak wetting trend is projected, particularly in Autumn and Winter, and in the south- west. In Spring and Summer, however, it is set to dry weakly and moderately respectively, especially in the south-west. Furthermore, there is low variability between the datasets, indicating higher confidence.

5.2.3 2080s

5.2.3.1 Temperature

An increase of between 2 and 5°C in maximum temperature, and between 2 and 4°C in minimum temperature, is projected on an annual basis, with a fairly strong bias towards the east. For both maximum and minimum temperature, the RCP 8.5 datasets both display a large anomaly range, as well as greater absolute magnitudes of anomaly. For maximum temperature, Winter is projected to warm more significantly than the other seasons. For both Winter and Summer, minimum temperatures are set to rise more significantly than the other seasons.

5.2.3.2 Precipitation

There is no appreciable trend in annual precipitation. In Autumn and Winter, however, weak wetting is projected in the south-west, while weak drying is projected for the south-west in Spring and Summer.

REFERENCES

Christensen, J.H., K. Krishna Kumar, E. Aldrian, S.-I. An, I.F.A. Cavalcanti, M. de Castro, W. Dong, P. Goswami, A. Hall, J.K. Kanyanga, A. Kitoh, J. Kossin, N.-C. Lau, J. Renwick, D.B. Stephenson, S.-P. Xie and T. Zhou, 2013: Climate Phenomena and their Relevance for Future Regional Climate Change. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Desmet, P.G., & Cowling, R.M. 1999. Biodiversity, habitat and range-size aspects of a flora from a winter-rainfall desert in north-western Namaqualand, South Africa. Plant Ecology, 142: 23-33. FAO. n.d. Drought impact mitigation and prevention in the Limpopo River Basin - Chapter 2: Biophysical characteristics. FAO Natural Resources Management and Environment Department. [Online]. Available: http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/y5744e/y5744e05.htm#TopOfPage [17 July 2014]. Fitchett, J.M., & Grab, S.W. 2014. A 66-year tropical cyclone record for south-east Africa: temporal trends in a global context. Int. J. of Climatol. (2014). Published online in Wiley Online Library. Goddard, L., & Graham, N.E. 1999. Importance of the Indian Ocean for simulating rainfall anomalies over eastern and southern Africa. Journal of Geophysical Research, 104(D16): 19,099-19,116. Marshall, G.J. 2003. Trends in the Southern Annular Mode from Observations and Reanalyses. Journal of Climate, 16: 4134-4143. Midgley, G.F., & Thuiller, W. 2007. Potential vulnerability of Namaqualand plant diversity to anthropogenic climate change. Journal of Arid Environments, 70: 615-628. Pohl, B., Fauchereau, N., Richard, Y., Rouault, M., & Reason, C.J.C. 2009. Interactions between synoptic, intraseasonal and interannual convective variability over Southern Africa. Climate Dynamics, 33: 1033-1050. Rocha, A., & Simmonds, I. 1997. Interannual variability of south-eastern African summer rainfall rainfall. Part 1: Relationships with air-sea interaction processes. International Journal of Climatology, 17: 235-265. Solomon, S., Plattner, G.-K., Knutti, R., & Friedlingstein, P. 2009. Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(6): 1704-1709. South Africa Explorer. 2014. Giyani climate. [Online]. Available: http://www.saexplorer.co.za/south- africa/climate/giyani_climate.asp [16 July 2014]. South Africa Explorer. 2014. Nieuwoudtville climate. [Online]. Available: http://www.saexplorer.co.za/south-africa/climate/nieuwoudtville_climate.asp [16 July 2014]. South Africa Explorer. 2014. Port Nolloth climate. [Online]. Available: http://www.saexplorer.co.za/south-africa/climate/port_nolloth_climate.asp [16 July 2014]. South Africa Explorer. 2014. Tzaneen climate. [Online]. Available: http://www.saexplorer.co.za/south- africa/climate/tzaneen_climate.asp [16 July 2014]. Tyson, P.D., & Preston-Whyte, R.A. 2000. The Weather and Climate of Southern Africa. Cape Town: Oxford University Press. Van den Heever, S.C., D‟Abreton, P.C., & Tyson, P.D. 1997. Numerical simulation of tropical- temperate troughs over southern Africa using CSU RAMS model. South African Journal of Science, 93: 359-365.

APPENDIX A: TIME-SERIES AND BOXPLOTS

A1 Interpretation

Bar graphs

For a given scenario and dataset: The first column represents the historical period. The second to forth columns represent the 2020s, 2050s and 2080s, respectively. The bars display the greatest anomaly within the dataset. The anomaly represents the range between the ensemble maximum minus the historical mean, and the ensemble minimum minus the historical mean. Therefore, this gives an indication of the inherent uncertainty in each case.

Time-series (line graphs)

For a given scenario and dataset: The area making up each „line‟ displays the range of the anomaly within the dataset. The anomaly represents the range between the ensemble maximum minus the historical mean, and the ensemble minimum minus the historical mean. Therefore, this gives an indication of the inherent uncertainty in each case. The two dashed lines in the first column (historical period) indicate two standard deviations above- and below the models‟ mean, respectively.

Temperature anomaly in °C and precipitation anomaly is % change.

Note: For the Winter months (core JJA), the CCAM raw data was populated almost exclusively with zeroes. It appears as if there is a fault of sorts in the raw data. Please interpret the CCAM spatial plots for this period accordingly.

Annex II: Vulnerability Analyses

Annex II.1: Vulnerability Assessment Greater Letaba and Greater Giyani Local Municipalities

Vulnerability Assessment Greater Letaba and Greater Giyani Local Municipalities

July 2014

Prepared by Katinka Waagsaether

Table of Contents 1. Introduction & Background ...... 2. Literature review ...... 3. Theoretical framework and Methodology ...... 4. Assessing the multiple factors shaping current vulnerability ...... 4.1 Livelihoods ...... 4.2 Sectors ...... Agriculture ...... The Water Sector ...... Health ...... Disaster Management ...... Summary of sectoral analysis ...... 5. Vulnerability to climate change ...... 5.1 Livelihoods ...... Farming ...... Hawkers ...... Health ...... Infrastructure ...... 5.2 Sectoral ...... Agriculture ...... The Water Sector ...... Health ...... Disaster Management ...... 6. Vulnerability to climate change in the context of current vulnerability ...... 7. Concluding remarks and recommendations ...... 8. References ......

1. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

In its most simple terms vulnerability can be defined as “The degree to which human and environmental systems are likely to experience harm due to perturbation or stress” (Luers et al, 2003: 255). In the context of climate change, for which evidence is now unequivocal from the current warming trends of the climate system (IPCC, 2013), the understanding of how human and environmental systems are likely to experience harm due to a changing climate has become increasingly important. This is because in order to respond to impacts it is important to understand the dynamics that shape the impacts of climate change, as well as the current ability to respond. This will not only work to ensure that the responses that are developed for climate change are as appropriate as possible, it will also work to ensure that money and efforts are focused on the sectors and activities that need it the most.

The approaches to assessing vulnerability are many and they vary widely. As such they also provide very different insights, from an understanding of the extent to which Africa is more vulnerable to climate change than Europe, to an understanding of the degree to which tomato production in Limpopo is vulnerable to climate change. In choosing a vulnerability assessment approach it is therefore important to consider the goal of the assessment, the level of analysis and the data that is available.

This vulnerability assessment set out to create an understanding of the local dynamics shaping livelihoods and sectors in Greater Letaba Local Municipality (Letaba) and Greater Giyani Local Municipality (Giyani), and how climate change might impact these. The background for the assessment was to provide the foundation on which priority sectors for climate change adaptation could be chosen, and to ensure that the climate change adaptation responses are based on a sound understanding of the local dynamics and the needs as identified by local stakeholders.

Greater Letaba and Greater Giyani Local Municipalities

Figure 1: Left: Illustrating the location of Mopani District Municipality in South Africa. Right: Outlining the five local municipalities in Mopani District Municipality.

Letaba and Giyani are located in the north eastern part of South Africa, forming two out of five local municipalities in Mopani District Municipality in the Limpopo Province. The area falls within the summer rainfall region of South Africa, where the majority of rainfall falls in the period October through March. Rainfall often comes in the form of convection thunderstorms, and can vary significantly at the inter-decadal scale due to the influence of El Nino Southern Oscillation thunderstorms (Davies et al, 2010). The annual average rainfall for the Letaba Catchment, within which the Mopani District is located, is 612 mm (MDM, 2010). But there is a west - east rainfall gradient, with the mountainous areas of the west receiving around 2000 mm a year and the dryer low veld areas in the east receiving around 400 mm a year (MDM, 2010). Frost is a rare occurrence in Mopani District, and annual average temperatures also show a slight west-east gradient, with an average of 21°C in the Mountainous areas in the west and an average of 25°C in the dry low veld areas in the east (MDM, 2010). As reflected in the rainfall and temperatures gradients landscapes vary greatly, from the lush mountainous areas of western Letaba to the plains and lowlands of eastern Giyani.

While population size is relatively similar in the two local municipalities, 212 701 in Letaba and 244 217 in Giyani, densities are a lot higher in Letaba, whose total land area is 1 891 km2 versus Giyani‟s 4 172 km2. Under the Apartheid Regime, large areas of the Mopani District was part of the so called Gazankulu and Lebowa "homelands", and a lot of the land is today held in trust for tribal and community authorities (MDM, 2008). Accordingly, traditional authorities still play an important role in decisions around land made available for economic purposes or to individuals for settlements (MDM, 2008). Land ownership is still a contentious issue in Giyani and Letaba, and while only 186 km2 of Giyani is currently subjected to claims (GGLM, 2013), as much as 48% of Letaba‟s total land area is subjected to land claims (GLLM, 2013).

Key economic sectors in Giyani, both formal and informal, include: the public sector (government services); agriculture (maize, vegetables, tomatoes, beef); retail and services; transport (mainly taxi and bus industry); and tourism (MDM, 2008). Agriculture is the backbone of the local economy of Giyani, and there are vast areas of arable land and irrigation schemes (GGLM, 2013). Yet agricultural products have recently been found to undergo serious decline due to drought and shortage of water availability (GGLM, 2013).

In Letaba key sectors include: public sector (government services); agriculture, forestry and fishing; wholesale, retail trade, catering and accommodation; transport and communication; and finance and business services (GLLM, 2013). Giyani has the lowest employment rate at 39.6% (GGLM, 2013), versus Letaba where 58.8% are employed (GL, 2013). Agriculture is one of the major employers in Letaba, with large areas of moderate arable land, much of which is currently under cultivation, mainly located in the central parts of the municipality (GLLM, 2013). Commercial farming products mainly comprise mangoes, citrus and avocadoes, and the municipality is also the location for the largest tomato farm in Southern Africa, ZZ2. The Northern and North Western parts of Letaba feature marginal potential arable and non-arable land, while forestry plantations are located in the southern parts of the municipality (GLLM, 2013).

Scattered villages and limited infrastructure makes service delivery challenging for Letaba and Giyani. The role out of sanitation for all areas of the local municipalities is progressing, yet lack of access to basic sanitation is still a major problem that leads to environmental and health challenges in both rural and urban areas (MDM, 2008). In Letaba 12% have access to flush toilets, while the majority, 69%, have pit toilets and 18.6% do not have access to any toilet system (Letaba, 2013). While the most recent statistics for Giyani (Census 2011) are not available, it can be expected that sanitation access has improved over the last few years the 2007 Census which showed that 54.9% had no access to toilet systems (GGLM, 2013). Refuse removal still has a big backlog in both municipalities, with removal generally being focused on urban areas. In Letaba only 4 out of 80 villages have access to municipal refuse removal (GLLM, 2013), and in Giyani only 13% of households have access to municipal removals (GGLM, 2013). For areas that do not have access to municipal removals, households generally use communal dumps or their own dumps. Access to electricity on the other hand is generally high, 91% in Letaba and 81% in Giyani2 (GLLM, 2013; GGLM, 2013).

Water is a challenge across both Letaba and Giyani. Both areas are characterised by low rainfall, especially in the low lying areas of Giyani, and there is stiff competition for water with agriculture consuming around 70% of the water in Mopani District Municipality (MDM, 2008). In Letaba communities often face situations where they have to use contaminated water from contaminated natural sources, leading to spread of for example bilharzias disease (GGLM, 2013). The majority of households access piped water, 87% of households in Giyani and 91% of households in Letaba, though the majority of these are communal taps (GGLM, 2013; GLLM, 2013 – based on StatsSA 2011 Census). This means that accessing water is a time consuming and strenuous task for many people in Giyani and Letaba.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

In a spatially focused study, Chapter Four of the Technical Report 2013/14 of the Financial and Fiscal Commission (Turpie and Visser, 2012) rates the climate change vulnerability of local municipalities in South Africa. The assessment considers vulnerability in terms of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity, using an index based approach. Out of the 226 South African local municipalities, 20 are

2 Note that the statistics only show access to energy for lighting, and do not reflect the energy used for cooking or heating

rated at five, the highest vulnerability score. Two of these local municipalities are Greater Letaba Local Municipality (Letaba) and Greater Giyani Local Municipality (Giyani). The vulnerability assessment finds that rural municipalities are generally more vulnerable than other types of municipalities, and that rural municipalities in former homeland areas are particularly vulnerable (Turpie and Visser, 2012). The most vulnerable areas were also found to generally contain most of the country‟s rural poor, which can in turn be linked to the lack of socio-economic capacity seen as an important part of adaptive capacity (Turpier and Visser, 2012). Letaba and Giyani fit these generalisations, being located in former homeland areas and featuring very low income levels, with around 90% of the population in both Letaba and Giyani earning less than R800 a month (MDM, 2006-2013). The municipal vulnerability assessment also highlights that high exposure in parts of the north eastern parts of the country can be contributed to changes in temperature, rainfall and increased exposure to malaria (Turpier and Visser, 2012).

In South Africa health risks likely to be aggravated by climate change include both vector-born diseases such as malaria, and communicable and non-communicable diseases (DEA, 2013b). Infections carried by vectors, such as malaria, are climate sensitive, and a recent study done in Limpopo found that temperatures greatly influence the incidence of disease (Thompson et al, 2012). Focused on children‟s health, the study found that unit increases in temperatures led to over 100 percent increase in incidents of infections such as malaria and diarrhea (Thompson et al, 2012).

Malnutrition is also highlighted as one of the key climate related health risks in South Africa, with strong linkages to the water and agriculture sectors (DEA, 2013b). Climate change is expected to affect food systems, and lead to food shortages and increasing food prices (DEA, 2013b). The IPCC (2014) expects that rising food prices resulting from reduced agricultural production is likely to have the greatest effect on the wage-labor dependent poor households in Africa, who are generally net buyers of food. In turn, compromised access to food can ultimately lead to malnutrition. As was found by Turpie and Visser in the Technical Report 2013/14 of the Financial and Fiscal Commission (2012), a generally warmer and drier climate in South Africa is expected to largely have negative effects on South African agriculture and food security. Women from poor households can be seen as particularly vulnerable in this regard, as they tend to be the shock absorbers during food crisis, skipping meals to ensure that their family members do not go hungry (Groenmeyer, 2013). Women have also been found to spend more of their income on food purchases than men, and are therefore set to be affected disproportionally by fall in agricultural production (Maponya and Mpandeli, 2012a).

The issue of food security, with its strong links to agricultural production and access to water resources, can thus be seen as a critical issue when addressing climate change impacts in Giyani and Letaba. The Limpopo Province has been found to be particularly vulnerable to climate variability and change, due to agricultural dependence on climatic conditions, especially on the quality of the rainy season (Maponya and Mpandeli, 2012a). This vulnerability is particularly for dry-land producers, as irrigated production is generally less vulnerable to climatic conditions (Maponya and Mpandeli, 2012b). A study looking at tomato production in Limpopo found there to be a correlation between temperature and tomato production, and noted that for farmers without advanced technology and good modern agricultural practices climate change could experience negative impacts on tomato yields (Tshiala and Olwoch, 2010).

Limpopo is one of the poorest provinces in the country (Maponya and Mpandeli, 2012b), and climate change impacts on agriculture will take place in the context of developmental stresses, including poverty and unemployment (Maponya and Mpandeli, 2012a). As was highlighted by Disaster Risk Assessments conducted for Giayni and Letaba (NETGroup South Africa, 2012a; NETGroup South Africa, 2012b) key items contributing to the current vulnerability status of communities include poverty, health, water and road infrastructure. This reflects how developmental issues, the lack of economic development and basic services, make communities in Letaba and Giyani more vulnerable to disaster. Accordingly, the Disaster Risk Assessments propose the implementation of poverty alleviation programmes as a key means to improve community resilience to deal with disaster. Key priority threats that communities in Letaba and Giyani were found to be vulnerable to include fires, drought, floods, hazardous material, deforestation, epidemics/disease, water pollution, dam failure, agricultural disease, sand mining and extreme weather (NETGroup South Africa, 2012a; NETGroup South Africa, 2012b). Current disaster threats thus include a combination of climatic and human induced threats. Proposed responses, additionally to poverty alleviation, include a number of precautionary responses: precautionary and proactive measures to deal with veld fires; drought

management practices, farm management practices to avoid spreading of epidemics and sustainable farm management; and early warning systems and information dissemination systems (NETGroup South Africa, 2012a; NETGroup South Africa, 2012b).

While there is some understanding of the dynamics that shape the current vulnerability of communities and people in Giyani and Letaba, this research will provide an in-depth understanding of local vulnerabilities and of vulnerability to climate change more specifically. It will expand on the health and agricultural focused climate change research already conducted in the Limpopo province, and provide a broader yet more spatially focused picture of climate change impacts and vulnerabilities.

3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND METHODOLOGY

The vulnerability analysis was built around the understanding of vulnerability as a result of potential impacts and adaptive capacity, as outlined in figure 2 below.

Figure 2: Outline of vulnerability (based on outline in GIZ, 2011)

For the purpose of this assessment the concepts above are defined as follows:

Exposure: The degree of stress a system is subjected to. Stressor: Events and trends, often not climate-related, which have an important effect on the system exposed and can increase vulnerability to climate-related risk (IPCC, 2014). Sensitivity: The degree to which a system or species is affected, either adversely or beneficially, by stress. Impacts: Effects on lives, livelihoods, health status, ecosystems, economic, social and cultural assets, services (including environmental), and infrastructure (IPCC, 2014). Adaptive capacity: The ability of systems, institutions, humans and other organisms to adjust to potential damage, to take advantage of opportunities, or to respond to consequences (IPCC, 2014).

This vulnerability assessment is grounded in a participatory approach, with the information for analysis being gathered through a number of workshops conducted with stakeholders from Letaba and Giyani. Through participatory workshops stakeholders were asked to assess local vulnerability by using the above concepts to various extents.

The workshops were based on the adaptation planning cycle, where understanding of current and future vulnerability provides the foundation for climate change adaptation planning. This means that, an important first step is to understand current vulnerability. As people live and work in multi-stressor environments, and are constantly dealing with climatic as well as other stressors, this analysis focused on vulnerability to multiple stressors, including climatic, socio-economic and political.

Having built that foundation, understanding some of the dynamics of the present, the next step was to assess vulnerability to projected climate change. Only with that understanding of current vulnerability and vulnerability to future climate change could one identify appropriate adaptation responses, which further work to build an understanding of relevant sensitivities and the adaptive capacities that are required to create more resilient communities in the face of climate change.

Two different methodological approaches were used for these workshops, a livelihoods and a sectoral approach. These two approaches are seen as providing complimentary yet somewhat differential information. The two approaches are outlined in more detail below.

Livelihoods approach

Number of workshops: Two, one in Letaba and one in Giyani Participants targeted: Community Development Workers (CDWs) 3 from Letaba and Giyani Workshop participants: 28 at Letaba4 22 at Giyani

The livelihoods workshops were grounded in the definition of livelihoods as the entitlements and assets to which people have access (IPCC, 2014). Such assets can be categorized as human, social, natural, physical, or financial (IPCC, 2014). By identifying the main livelihood activities, the challenges facing those activities and the underlying causes and possible solutions to those challenges, it was possible to build some understanding of not only the activities but also the capabilities and assets that livelihoods in Letaba and Giyani are comprised of.

Accordingly the workshops had the following three main steps: Outlining the main activities from which people in Letaba and Giyani currently make a living, and rate the most important of those in terms of the number of people making a living from that activity. Creating an understanding of the main stressors that people currently face in conducting those activities, the underlying causes of these challenges and the possible solutions to deal with the stressors. Exploring how climate change might impact the activities through which people make a living.

While step one was conducted in plenary the workshop, participants worked through step two and three in groups, and the findings of each group was then shared back to plenary. In the workshops stressors were referred to as challenges, in order for it to be easier for the group to relate to.

Sectoral approach

Number of workshops: Four, at Municipal venues in Giyani and Tzaneen Sectors targeted: Agriculture, water, health and disaster management Participants targeted: Agriculture: Extension officers Water: Water supply and waste management practitioners Health: Environmental health practitioners Disaster management: Municipal officials working in disaster management

Workshop participants: Agriculture: 11 Water: 12 Health: 17 Disaster management: 15

The approach of the sectoral workshops was developed based on the methodologies developed by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH (2011) and UK Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP) (2009). While based on the systematic step by step approaches outlined by GIZ and UKCIP, it was developed to fit the six hours‟ time frame of each workshop and the fact that to the large majority of participants climate change was a new theme altogether.

3 For the Letaba Livelihoods Workshop the Local Municipality also invited community representatives from the environmental projects, and due to a low turnout from CDWs these project representatives made up the majority of participants. Though not the initial intention, this still provided an opportunity to get further insights from community members across Letaba. 4 While 28 people signed up on the attendance register for the workshop, it is important to note that there were only on average between 15 and 20 people participating throughout the day.

The methodology was focused on the following three main steps:

1) Assessing vulnerability to current stress

Participants were asked to assess the vulnerability of key systems that they work with in their sector, guided by a table with the following headings:

Table 1: Table used in group work on current vulnerability Exposure System/ Impacts Consequences Current sensitivity Current (stressor: climatic activity adaptive and other) capacity

2) Assessing vulnerability to future stress

The participants were presented with an overview of the climate change projections for the Mopani area, together with historical trends. Based on the main messages that came out from the historical trends and the projections, they were then asked to go back to the vulnerability lens, and look at how the systems they work with are vulnerable to climate change.

Table 2: Table used for group work on vulnerability to climate change Exposure System/ activity Impacts Consequences Current sensitivity Current (climate adaptive change capacity trends)

3) Identifying climate change adaptation responses

Having developed some understanding of the current vulnerabilities, and vulnerabilities to future stress, the groups could start exploring climate change adaptation responses. The groups were asked to take the flipcharts on which they had outlined the vulnerability to climate change, and identify possible responses to deal with each of the identified exposures, the climate change trends, taking the possible impacts and consequences into account.

Workshop participants worked in groups throughout the day. The workshop process was such that for each step the participants were given a short contextual presentation, followed by an explanation of the group work that would follow.

Climate change projections and observed trends used for livelihoods and sectoral approaches

An important component of both the livelihoods and sectoral approach was the presentation of climate change trends. The trends presented at the workshops were based on the Long Term Adaptation Scenario (LTAS) report on Climate trends and scenarios (DEA, 2013a). Due to the limited experience of workshop participants in interpreting climate information, there was focus on making the message as simple yet robust as possible. Accordingly the message was based on both the historical trends and the projections outlined in the LTAS report. For the initial workshops the following main messages, referred to as climate change trends, were communicated, following an outline of historical trends, projections and related uncertainties:

Increasing temperatures: Uncertainty in rainfall: • Increase in average temperatures • Unpredictable change in annual average • Increase in the number of extremely warm • Less frequent but more intense rainfall days events • Longer dry spells in-between

These were amended and simplified somewhat for the two livelihoods workshops: • Increase in number of extremely hot days • Increase in average temperatures • More intense heavy rainfall events

Importantly, the communication around these climate change trends was that there is a lot of uncertainty related to future projections, both in terms of the Global Circulation Models and the future trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions. The fact that there is more certainty relating to the temperature trends than to the rainfall trends was also communicated.

Methodological challenges

The six hour time frame of each workshop limited the extent to which time could be spent on collectively understanding and exploring all the climate change related concepts, and the issue of climate change itself. It was therefore somewhat challenging to ensure that all the concepts were understood correctly, and this had some impact on the quality of the data collected. In the sectoral workshops sensitivity turned out to be a particularly challenging concept, while current adaptive capacity was often confused with desired adaptive capacity. The differentiation between impacts and consequences was also challenging for some participants. These challenges are therefore reflected in the differential information analysed below for the different sectors.

A number of different languages and dialects are spoken across Letaba and Giyani, including Northern Sotho, Tsonga and Afrikaans. English provided a common language for the workshops, but some time was taken to explore whether there are any words for vulnerability in Northern Sotho, Tsonga or Afrikaans. The difficulty faced in finding and agreeing on translations reflects the challenges related to working with diverse groups with various mother tongues.

At the livelihoods workshop in Letaba language was a challenge, as it turned out that participants were nor comfortable to communicate in English. While co-facilitators were able to provide translation, this proved challenging and time consuming. Furthermore, some workshop participants spoke a difficult dialect that made it somewhat challenging for the co-facilitators to translate.

This vulnerability analysis is purely based on the input of the 111 stakeholders from across Letaba and Giyani participating in the workshops, and it is therefore important to note that the information gathered is based on the subjective perception of stressors, impacts etc. of the stakeholders.

4. ASSESSING THE MULTIPLE FACTORS SHAPING CURRENT VULNERABILITY

In order to understand vulnerability to climate change an important first step is to create an understanding of current vulnerability, as the present challenges and dynamics are the foundation for future vulnerability. Given the multi-stressor environment that people live and work in, it is important to understand the various dynamics, be it climatic, social, economic or political, that shape people‟s current vulnerability. This section looks at current vulnerability by assessing the different stressors that are currently impacting livelihoods, and expands on this by taking a closer look at the exposure, impacts and adaptive capacity of some of the main sectors, including agriculture, water, health and disaster management. The information for each sector varied somewhat, as the extent to which the groups understood and fully engaged with various aspects differed to some extent. Furthermore, for some sectors breaking down the different concepts and making linkages was more complicated than for other.

4.1 Livelihoods

This section focuses on outlining the most important income generating activities practiced in Letaba and Giyani, and the stressors that people are currently faced with in carrying out these activities. The aim of this focus is to create an understanding of livelihoods in Letaba and Giyani, and the type of stressors that currently make them vulnerable.

The list below provides an overview of the income generating activities practiced across Letaba and Giyani, as outlined by participants at the two livelihoods workshops. The relative importance of the different activities, in terms of the perceived number of people making a living from that activity, is indicated by the sequence of the activities, with the most important, hawkers, listed first and the less

important activities towards the end5. As can be observed in the list below the most important livelihood activities include hawking, small-scale farming, commercial farming and the subsequent need for farm workers, and the running of a large variety of small businesses and cooperatives. Agriculture, as well as the sale of agricultural products and other products, and innovation through the set-up and running of small businesses can therefore be seen as central to livelihoods in Letaba and Giyani.

Overview of the most important income generating activities practiced in Letaba and Giyani:

Hawkers6 Small-scale crop and livestock farming: (Beans, potatoes, green pepper, tomatoes, banana, apples, cattle, pigs, chickens and goats) Commercial farming/Farm workers (Crop farming, livestock ( poultry )) Small scale businesses/cooperatives:  Arts and crafts  Sewing  Making and selling shoes  Baking (bread, cookies, scones etc)  Making and selling peanut butter  Catering and decoration (for weddings etc)  Buy goods i.e. window and sell it to get profit  Brick making  Collect sand from river and sell to the local community for house building  Welding (Door frames, window frames, gates, burglar doors)  Hair dressing  Washing cars  Giving cash loans at an interest  Selling water from boreholes  Cash for scrap  Waste recycling Office work (Schools, hospitals and private companies ) Social grants Funeral parlours Taxi/Bus workers Expanded Public works Programme (Street maintenance, closing dongas ) Domestic workers Shop keepers Construction work, skilled and or temporary Collection, processing and sale of natural resources  Making and selling beer from Amarula or traditional beer from Sorghum  Collecting wood in the wild and transport it to buyers using donkey carts  Pick and sell Mopani worms Driving schools Roadside mechanics Goods transportation Illegal mining

These livelihood activities are under stress due to a number of factors, the majority of which have social, economic or political linkages that shape the degree to which the livelihoods of people in Letaba and Giyani are currently vulnerable. Workshop participants focused a lot on agricultural activities, including commercial and small-scale crop and livestock farming, with a lot of focus on climatic stressors as highlighted in red in the table below.

5 This sequence is based on the perceptions of workshop participants at the Letaba and Giyani livelihoods workshops. 6 Hawker refers to a vendor of products that can easily be transported, and hawkers generally sell their products in formal or informal markets or along the roadside. Their products can be items they have made or grown themselves, but it is often also products, commonly agricultural products, that they have bought in order to sell on.

Table 3: Stressors facing agriculture, and their causes and possible solutions, with climate related stressors highlighted in red.

Income generating Stressors Causes Solutions activity Commercial The seasonality of farming Some crops are ploughed Reduce monoculture: They must farming/farm reduces income and seasonally; some are for plough different crops during the encourages retrenchment winter (merepa) whereas different seasons to reduce lack of workers some are for summer, e.g jobs during certain times of the year mangoes, mafela, leach There is a problem of There is no money To collect leaves, dead plants to accessing fertilizers, tools and make compost/ There is a need for machinery equipment to use in the farm/ Need support to make fences/ Need herbicides to kill insects on plants

There is a lack of workers to Farmers need to work with fellow Lack of knowledge about support farming activities farmers/ There is need to educate farming people about farming

Small-scale Drought is caused by lack of There is a need for water, need crop farming rainfall boreholes. Can use waste water to Drought - kills crops irrigate crops

Climate change Limit the burning of hazardous waste that disturbs the atmosphere More rain, more insects arise on the crops and they end up rotten or dead

Floods - Plants die, fertile soil is washed away – leads to reduced income

Extremely sunny (hot) - some crops cannot survive, workers cannot be physically active – leads to low production and reduced income Drought Climate change

Floods

Small-scale Overgrazing, overstocking/ Feed lot and abattoir ( value addition) livestock food farming Unemployment, criminal Tighten the criminal justice system Stock theft justice system not effective

Proximity to Kruger National Refurbishment of fences Foot and Mouth Disease Park, damage to redline and other fences

Lack of marketing skills Skills development Markets

Beyond the agriculture focus, workshop participants chose to focus on hawkers, small businesses and cooperatives, domestic workers, funeral parlours, taxi and bus drivers and social grants, and the details of stressors, causes and possible solutions are outlined in the table below. The table shows how climate related stressors are not seen as impacting these activities in the present.

100

Table 4: Stressors facing various income generating activities, and their causes and possible solutions.

Income generating Stressors Causes Solutions activity No proper suppliers They are not organised Hawkers association Low profit Selling same goods Fruits and Veg rotting Lack of storage Cool storage- municipality Transporting- stock Pricing high Hawkers Mushrooming – no Selling same goods Grouping- club- rotation consistency Lack of by- laws Market stalls Law enforcement Cost of transportation Being far from market : cost of Establishment of local market Small scale fuel e.g. petrol, diesel, oil businesses/ High competition/ no diversity Lack of business knowledge Diversity of products cooperatives Marketing Lack of marketing skills Skill development Space No market stalls Development of market stalls by municipality Domestic Low payment They are not properly workers Long working hours organised Proper training needed Workers are often illiterate Lack of information on labour acts Funeral Low payment Workers are often illiterate Should be registered parlour No contracts Work is casual / seasonal Permanent position

Taxi/ Bus Roads are not accessible Lack of roads maintenance Provision of good roads/services drivers Low payment High cost of fuel Provision of subsidy High dependency rate (74%) Poverty and unemployment Introduction of life skills in schools Misuse of grants Peer pressure Creation of sustainable jobs Teenage pregnancy Social grant system poor ( Tighten the system and to link the Social grants Fraud ( illegal airtime, loan poor technological system and social grant system to Home Affairs sharks) human element ) Employment Loans and gambling Grant money is little Increment of grant Cost of living

Below is a summary of the main stressors currently affecting people relying on these income generating activities, with climate related challenges highlighted in red. Non-climate related stress is much more common than climate related stress.

Transport costs/ high costs of fuel Drought Badly maintained roads Heavy rain Lack of organized labour/ associations Extreme heat Knowledge of workers’ rights Water shortages Knowledge/skills Overgrazing/overstocking Lack of stalls/ storage facilities Stock theft Lack of access to products Foot and Mouth Disease

When analaysing the underlying causes of stress through the lens of livelihoods assets, it can be found that these livelihood activities are largely vulnerable to stress due to limited access to livelihoods related assets. The table below highlights the links between the most important livelihood activities and the assets people lack in dealing with stressors faced in that activity.

101

Table 5: Linking livelihood activities with the livelihood assets that are currently limited or lacking.

Human assets: Natural assets: Financial assets: Physical Social assets: skills, knowledge land, water, wildlife, savings, credit, assets: networks, groups, and info, ability to biodiversity, remittances, transport, trust, access to work, health environment pensions shelter, water, institutions energy

Hawkers X X X

Small-scale crop X X X X & livestock farming Small businesses/ X X cooperatives

As illustrated in the analysis of income generating activities and some of the stressors faced in making a living from these activities, livelihoods in Letaba and Giyani can be considered vulnerable in that they have limited financial, physical, human, natural or social assets to deal with the stressors. Besides for the agricultural activities, for which climatic stress plays a very important role, all of the stressors facing income generating activities are non-climatic.

4.2 Sectors

Sectoral analysis of current vulnerability provides a different perspective, a more detailed insight into the context in which people live, the services that they have access to and the stress facing those services. The sectoral assessment of vulnerability looked at exposure to various stressors, sensitivity and adaptive capacity, as defined in the methodology. Grasping and applying these complex concepts during the course of a one day workshop can be challenging, and the information gathered for the different sectors therefore varies. For some sectors, such as agriculture, these concepts are for example easier to apply than in other sectors.

Agriculture

To get a more in-depth picture of the issues facing the agricultural sector, a workshop was convened with extension officers from Letaba and Giyani. The diagram below highlights stressors currently impacting agricultural production, both commercial and small-scale, and subsequent impacts, as identified at the agriculture workshop.

102

Figure 3: Stressors currently impacting the agricultural sector. The red boxes outline the systems that workshop participants chose to focus on, Crop production (top) and Livestock production (bottom), with the stressors affecting those systems outlined in the blue circles. The arrows point to the specific impacts identified for the different stressors, within the different systems.

Besides Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD), the stressors identified for agricultural activities are all climate related stressors, hence confirming the message that came out of the livelihoods workshops, that climate already plays a very important role in agricultural production. Both high and low temperatures were seen as causing stress for crop and livestock production, as well as below normal rainfall and heavy rainfall, reflecting how agricultural production is only optminal within a specific climatic envelopes.

As can be observed in the diagram above, some of the impacts identified have direct consequences for agricultural production, such as wilting of tomatoes due to low temperatures or heat stress in animals due to high temperatures. Other impacts highlighted are indirect, with for example bush encroachment impacting grazing space or physical access to markets being restricted due to heavy rainfall events damaging roads.

Levels of sensitivity and adaptive capacity provide further insights into the current dynamics of agricultural production in Letaba and Giyani, as these are the aspects that shape the extent to which agricultural activities are vulnerable to stress. The table below outlines some of the sensitivities and the adaptive capacity existing in the agricultural sector today, as linked to stressors, impacts and consequences. As outlined by extension officers, lack of access to resources, knowledge/ application of certain management practices and access to information are aspects that currently make crop and livestock production sensitive to impacts of climate stressors. As reflected in the current adaptive capacity outlined below resources and information, such as pesticides and early warning information,

103

are often exclusively accessible to a privileged group, generally the commercial farmers. This reflects the differential vulnerabilities within the agricultural sector in Letaba and Giyani, shaped by differences in sensitivities and adaptive capacity between commercial and small-scale farmers. This highlights the need to focus on supporting the small-scale farmers, who are generally less resourced and have more limited access to new knowledge and information.

Table 6: Overview of sensitivities and adaptive capacity linked to stressors currently impacting the agricultural sector. Stressors Impacts and Sensitivity Current Adaptive consequences Capacity High temperatures Crops: Heat stress, No construction of Some construct fire disease, veld fires fire belts belts No pesticides Some buy pesticides Livestock: Heat stress, Not enough water Some have earth disease, veld fires sources (drinking dams troughs) Low temperatures/ Crops: Frost damage, Lack of knowledge on Early warning information frost wilting and death of resource utilisation (e.g. systems in place, though tomatoes burning of tyres and use not accessible to all due Livestock: Livestock of kraal manure) to language etc mortality Below normal rainfall Crops: Crops die Poor grazing Control of invasive Livestock: Bush conditions (i.e. over- plants encroachment, low stocking which leads Rotational grazing, grazing capacity to overgrazing) enabling enough Poor veld grazing (commercial) management Supplementary No dedicated grazing feeding (commercial) camps Small-scale farmers No access to wait for supply from supplementary government feeding Heavy continuous Crops: Water logging – No access to early Some farmers are able to rainfall/ heavy rainfall crops die, floods – plants warning systems make contours events washed away Ploughing on river (commercial) Livestock: Limited road banks (because of access for marketing, insufficient access to fertile soil washed away, land) high livestock mortality No contours or soil conservation structures Foot and mouth Livestock: Market Destruction of fence at Road blocks for FMD 7 disease restrictions/ low prices, redline gates control and vaccinations livestock mortality

Water Sector

With the majority of households in Letaba and Giyani having access to water supplied by the Municipality, more often than not through communal taps, the vulnerability of the municipal water supply system plays a role in shaping people‟s access to water. The diagram below highlights stressors currently facing water supply, and subsequent impacts, as identified at the workshop with water supply and waste management practitioners from the local municipalities.

7 Redline gates: where livestock/game should not cross. Set up to prevent interaction between livestock and game, as FMD is caused by the interaction of wild and domestic animals.

104

Figure 4: Stressors currently impacting the water supply and waste water system. The red boxes outline the systems that workshop participants chose to focus on, Water supply in rural areas and Drinking water and waste water treatment plants, with the stressors affecting those systems outlined in the blue circles. The arrows point to the specific impacts identified for the different stressors, within the different systems. The text outlined between the stressors and the impacts are the aspects that make the system sensitive to the impacts of these stressors.

As highlighted in the figure above the key factors currently stressing water supply in rural areas, as identified by municipal water managers, are not climate related and instead relate to aging infrastructure and systems overload, as well as vandalism and illegal connections. Water managers at the local municipalities highlighted how vandalism, stealing of transformers, cables and diesel engines, is a big problem, which relates to the lack of income and job opportunities, leaving people with few opportunities to create an income. Illegal connections are also related to the same causes, lack of income and opportunities, together with poor water demand management.

Because the water supply system is currently overloaded, due to continued growth in informal settlements, it is also more sensitive to stress caused by old, or even outdated, infrastructure. The systems overload and the old infrastructure causes problems with the ability of the system to provide regular water supply.

In the case of the drinking water and waste water treatment plants the systems overload and the old infrastructure cause odour and blockages. The drinking water and waste water treatment plants were also considered to be stressed by heavy rain, causing turbidity which makes the chemicals generally used to clean the water insufficient and lead to the spread of water borne diseases.

The water managers identified the need for security measures, monitoring of water usage and dialogues with communities in order to deal with vandalism and illegal connections. The need for refurbishment of infrastructure, said to be limited in the present due to budget restrictions, as well as

105

the provision of water tanks were further ideas for dealing with aging infrastructure and systems overload.

Health

Health is an important factor in the lives of everyone, shaping people‟s well-being and ability to work. Analysis of the health sector was done through a workshop with health practitioners, mainly environmental health practitioners and health inspectors.

Figure 5: Stressors currently impacting the health sector. The red box outline the systems that workshop participants chose to focus on, which in this case could be grouped into the People in Mopani. The stressors affecting people in Mopani are outlined in the blue circles. The arrows point to the specific impacts identified for the different stressors.

Looking at the health sector and current challenges the stressors identified relate to waste management, potable water, zoonotic diseases8, unsafe foods and drought. Two of the stressors, waste and water, are rooted in service delivery challenges9. These issues of water and waste are linked to challenges of general access, maintenance and lack of infrastructure.

Lack of access to potable water, be it due to lack of supply or due to contamination of natural or constructed water supply systems, results in the consumption of unsafe water and people getting sick. While health practitioners noted that most people know that they should treat the water10 if they think

8 Contagious diseases spread between animals and humans. 9 The service delivery challenges relate back to the large backlog of basic service delivery for all, which faced the Democratic Government which took over in 1994. 10 By boiling the water or using chemicals

106

it is comes from a source that could be contaminated, they generally lack the time and resources to do so.

People get sick, or even lose their lives, due to consumption of infected/unsafe food. Such food ends up on people‟s plates as a result of poor hygiene practices, or due to the lack of inspection of meat and animal products. While there are regulations in place to deal with these, for example in relation to regulations for hawkers, lack of enforcement of hawker policies or misunderstandings of the policies, prevents such regulations from minimising the risk of food poisoning. Promotion of good hygiene practice and food handling is currently taking place through government initiatives, and there are thus some steps underway to try to deal with these issues.

Drought is a health related stressor in that it can result in food shortages and subsequent malnutrition. Letaba and Giyani were seen as being ill prepared for such stress, due to the lack of any contingency plan.

Disaster Management

Disaster management can be seen as cross-cutting, dealing with crisis and stress experienced across all sectors. Analysis of disaster management was done through a workshop with people working in disaster management, including risk management and disaster response planning.

Figure 6: Stressors currently impacting the Disaster Management Sector. The red boxes outline the systems that workshop participants chose to focus on, Communities/Settlements, Infrastructure and the Natural environment, with the stressors affecting those systems outlined in the blue circles. The arrows point to the specific impacts identified for the different stressors, within the different systems.

107

As can be observed in the figure above the stressors identified in relation to disaster management are all climate related stressors, thus confirming the central role of climate in disaster management. The identification of these climate related stressors and the related impacts are to some degree confirmed by the findings of the Disaster Risk Assessment and Disaster Risk Reduction report for Mopani District (2012), where for Letaba and Giyani fires, drought, dam failure, floods, deforestation, erosion, hazardous material, epidemics/disease, water pollution, water management, crime and extreme weather are highlighted as priority threats.

Communities and settlements in Letaba and Giyani are prone to stress caused by wind, resulting in damage to homes and loss of life. It was noted that many settlements are sensitive to such damage, as they are located in wind prone areas.

Infrastructure damage, due to veld fires, heavy rainfall or flooding, can disrupt service delivery and can result in communities being cut-off from basic services. Some infrastructure is particularly sensitive to damage from such events, due to the old age of a lot of infrastructure, and poor maintenance in some places.

The natural environment, the resource base on which people live and from which they depend, is prone to stress from climate related factors like drought and extreme heat. Resulting impacts, such as soil erosion, a dropping water table and veld degradation and fires, depletes this resource base and requires disaster management responses post disasters. The resource depletion further requires responses that aim to restore the resource base, and that promote sustainable resource use.

These findings give an indication of how people in Letaba and Giyani are disaster management vulnerable to a number of climate related stressors, with the disaster management sector having to develop approaches to respond. The findings further show how the impacts of these stressors can be severe, with communities being cut-off, losing access to services or losing their homes, and can in the worst cases lead to loss of life.

Summary of sectoral analysis

Summarised the key stressors currently facing the agriculture, water, health and disaster management sectors include: High temperatures Below normal rainfall Drought Heavy rainfall events/ floods Low temperatures/ frost Strong winds Veld fires Zoonotic disease - Foot and Mouth Disease Vandalism & illegal connections Aging infrastructure Overloaded water supply and waste and water treatment systems Waste management inadequacy Shortage of potable water/ lack of laboratories and related services Sale of unsafe foods

108

The stressors highlighted in red above refer to the climate related stressors. These were mainly highlighted in relation to agricultural production and disaster management, while in water and health stressors were largely focused on non-climate related stress such as service delivery challenges, old infrastructure and social and economic issues.

For agriculture, differential sensitivities and adaptive capacity emerged, with small-scale farmers seen as having less resources and information than commercial farmers, thus reflecting the need for efforts to focus on supporting the strengthening of the resilience of small-scale farmers. For the water sector overloaded systems, due to the growth of settlements, and vandalism and illegal connections, due to unemployment and lack of opportunities, were identified as the main stressors, thus reflecting how non-climatic stressors are currently of more concern than for example lack of rainfall.

For the health sector, challenges with service delivery, in terms of water supply and waste management, came out as important issues, leading to spread of disease. People also get sick from unsafe foods and uninspected meats, and there is a need for better hygiene, and better understanding and of enforcement of hawker policies. Drought also has health related consequences, as the lack of sufficient food supply can leads to malnutrition, thus highlighting the need for focus on food security.

For disaster management, as for agriculture, climate stressors were central. Current impacts experienced include damage to houses, infrastructure and the natural environment, with communities being cut-off and loosing access to services.

While the different sectors will need sector specific response to lessen the factors that shape the impacts of the exposure to these stressors, it seems that upgrading infrastructure, improving maintenance plans and improving potable water and waste management services, could be an important step towards decreasing the sensitivity and increasing adaptive capacity. These aspects are already high on the list of municipal priorities, and these research findings thus support continued prioritisation, while emphasising the need for greater urgency.

5. VULNERABILITY TO CLIMATE CHANGE

Having developed an understanding of current vulnerability of sectors and people in Letaba and Giyani to multiple stressors, this section proceeds to look at the vulnerability to climate change. Vulnerability to climate change is analysed through the assessment of how climate change trends may impact income generating activities, and expands on this by taking a closer look at how climate change trends may impact sectors, and the adaptive capacity currently in place to deal with such impacts.

The information for each income generating activity and sector varies somewhat, as the extent to which the groups understood and fully engaged with various aspects differed somewhat. Furthermore, for some sectors or income generating activities breaking down the different concepts and making linkages is more complicated than for other.

5.1 Livelihoods

The livelihoods assessment of climate change vulnerability looks at how climate change trends might impact income generating activities, and at the possible responses or solutions required to deal with these.

Farming

The majority of participants at the livelihoods workshops chose to focus on the possible impacts of climate change on farming activities. As outlined in the table below, an increase in the number of extremely warm days is perceived to have numerous possible impacts on farming activities. These impacts are strongly linked to water, as evaporation rates increase on extremely warm days, while at the same time crops and animals require more water due to the heat. The impact of heat on grass,

109

crops and livestock is another concern, resulting in decrease in livestock numbers, death of crops and livestock, and subsequent production, income and job losses.

For farm workers on commercial farms increase in the number of extremely warm days is seen to increase incidents of skin disease, as well as loss of jobs as overall production goes down. Solutions suggested in this regard include protection from the sun through protective clothing, and the establishment of alternative income through community gardens.

More intense heavy rainfall events are expected to lead to an increase in exposure to disease for both livestock and crops, resulting in a loss of crops and loss of grazing area. More intense heavy rainfall could also have indirect impacts on agricultural production, as heavy downpours will prevent farmers from going to work in the fields.

Table 7: Possible impacts of a changing climate on agriculture

Climate change Perceived impacts Suggested responses/solutions trends Livestock farming: Streams, rivers and dams dry up Introduction of earth dams and drinking Grass becomes dry troughs Excessive heat can lead to buying food Clear demarcation of grazing land supplements for livestock Storage facilities ( food ) Livestock consumes more water Encourage stock owners to keep livestock at Increase in number of Increase in diseases minimal number ( to sell) extremely warm days More livestock death Establish local abattoir Less livestock Establishment of cooperatives Low production of milk and meat

Crop farming: Lack of water Water tank to store water for watering People will not plough homestead gardens The plants get dry Crops die No production Lack of food due to drying out of plants

Commercial farming/farm workers: Workers exposed to skin diseases Protective clothing/shelter Low income due to reduced production To be organised into associations/ unions Loss of jobs due to low income Establishment of community gardens

Livestock farming: Livestock become lean Need big areas of arable land for livestock Scarcity of dairy and meat products Feed lots Increase in average temperatures Crop farming: Seasonal crops are affected Construction of infrastructure - Need dams Loss of income to store water

Livestock farming: Reduced grazing areas Maintenance of water drainage Intense heavy rainfall Exposure to diseases Livestock will not be able to go for grazing Degradation of livestock quality Livestock dies

Crop farming: Water logged crops Maintenance of water drainage Soil erosion Use rocks to prevent soil erosion Exposure to diseases Grow grass to avoid erosion, it will absorb No agricultural activities due to heavy rainfall water during heavy rainfall

Hawkers

For hawkers the possible climate change impacts highlighted are a combination of direct impacts on the hawkers themselves and on their products, as well as on the ability or willingness of customers to come to markets during very warm weather or during heavy rainfall. Concerns around products being spoilt, either due to heat or rainfall, are similar to some of the challenges that hawkers are facing at

110

the present, due to a lack of proper storage facilities and market stalls. Thus difficulties that hawkers are already facing might become more pronounced problems into the future.

Table 8: Possible impacts of a changing climate on Hawkers

Climate change Perceived impacts Possible responses/solutions trends Affected by skin diseases Modernised market stalls Vegetables quality affected and products Pack houses/ Proper storage/ shelter for become rotten goods Increase in number of No business Organise hawkers into cooperatives extremely warm days Less profit and loss of income Training in business skills People tend to buy cold drinks The type of goods they sell must correspond to the temperature or seasons. E.g. gem tomatoes in winter and cold drink when the temperatures are high Affected by skin diseases Get treatment on time People are affected by diseases e.g. high blood Proper storage for goods pressure Products are spoiled Increase in average Consumers may be affected due to increase in temperatures temperature, they may not come to town therefore business suffers Loss of profit, low income and job loss Day to day activities affected Government should provide hawkers with More intense heavy rainfall Products spoiled by rain market stalls in order to protect goods and Consumers do not go to town or people stay the owners indoors, even hawkers themselves stay indoors

Health

When considering the possible impacts of climate change on income generating activities workshop participants also made connections to health and infrastructure. As outlined in table 9 below, climate change trends are expected to have a variety of possible impacts on people‟s health, including more diseases and weakness.

Table 9: Possible impacts of a changing climate on health

Climate change Perceived impacts Suggested trends responses/solutions More diseases, like high blood pressure No suggestions made Diseases will be rife and people will not be able to go to the clinic Increase in number of Diarrhoea extremely warm days Dehydration Skin rash, skin cancer When there is drought people cannot go to work cause they will be weak People can lose energy due to excessive heat and they can die People die from heat

More intense heavy rainfall There will be diseases, like malaria

Infrastructure

For infrastructure, key concerns relate to damage to houses, roads and bridges, with for example increased risk for children having to cross rivers to get to school. Here a number of possible responses and solutions were highlighted, including the building of bridges and erosion control measures.

111

Table 10: Possible impacts of a changing climate on infrastructure

Climate Possible impacts Suggested responses/solutions trends Roads, houses and bridges collapse Resilient bridges must be constructed so Cars will not be able to drive that children may cross over when they go Rivers get full and children drown to school People cannot go to work and this result to lower income Constructing strong bridges so we can pass More intense Heavy rainfall kills people and there will not be jobs and to other side heavy rainfall there will be hunger Put stones in the river to create a bridge When the houses get wet or fall due to rain, we can cover them with tent covers Construct a structure so that when it must rain we‟ll be able to sew inside the building Create gabions on the road side to prevent landslides so that cars can pass through. When it destroys the roads what can we do We make bridges

5.2 Sectoral

The sectoral assessment of climate change vulnerability looked at how climate change trends might impact the various sectors, and the adaptive capacity currently in place to deal with the impacts. Grasping and applying these complex concepts during the course of a one day workshop can be challenging, and the information gathered for the different sectors therefore varies, as reflected in the sections below.

Agriculture

The agricultural workshop allowed for some in depth analysis of how agricultural production might be impacted by climate change, and what might be required for it to respond to these impacts. The impacts, as identified by agricultural extension officers, are outlined in the diagramme below.

112

Figure 7: Possible impacts of climate change on the agricultural sector. The red boxes outline the systems that workshop participants chose to focus on, Crop production (top) and Livestock production (bottom), with the climate change trends (stressors) expected to affect those systems outlined in the blue circles. The arrows point to the specific impacts identified for the different stressors, within the different systems.

Impacts on agricultural production, including commercial and small-scale farming, was analysed through two main focuses, livestock production and crop production. For livestock (see the bottom half of diagramme above), concerns centred around impacts on grazing availability and quality and the animals becoming weaker and less fertile due to heat and decreased water availability. These impacts could lead to a fall in the overall livestock quality and production.

For crop production (see top half of diagramme above) generally low production is a secondary impact resulting from different climate change trends. The low production is linked to aspects such as inability to follow the usual production plans, drying of seedlings, heat stress in plants and vulnerability

113

to disease. All of the above could lead to loss of production, contracts and farming assets, and subsequent loss of interest in farming.

Looking at both crop farming and livestock farming (see far right of the diagramme above), more intense heavy rainfall events can lead to water logging, soil erosion and loss of fertile soil, as well as damage to infrastructure and problems with accessing the farming land.

Existing adaptive capacity highlighted in relation to the mentioned climate change impacts include: planting of drought resistant cultivars; sharing of knowledge and information through farmer days and workshops; frequent irrigation; and spraying programmes. For livestock, cattle movement, supplementary feeding provided by government and selling of livestock were highlighted by extension officers, with the latter two illustrating what can be seen as emergency responses. In relation to more intense heavy rainfall ploughing and planting across the slopes, construction of gabion baskets and planting of vertiver grass were highlighted as current practices that build adaptive capacity. The practice of integrated farming systems, with both crops and livestock, is also seen as strengthening farmer adaptive capacity.

While the various impacts of climate change related stressors on crops and livestock are general, and can thus apply for both commercial and small-scale farming, the extent to which farmers are able to adapt, and thus prevent or minimise impacts, differs. As outlined in the agricultural section on current vulnerability, adaptive capacity, including access to resources and information, is often exclusively accessible to a privileged group, generally the commercial farmers. Hence while there are a number of climate smart practices available, commercial and small-scale farmers have differential access to these, due to differential access to the resources or information required.

Hence while some of the challenges faced by commercial and small-scale farmers in the face of climate change are be similar, small-scale farmers will require additional support to access and implement climate smart practices that reduce vulnerability to climate change.

Water Sector

Concerns around decreasing water supply were emphasised both in the livelihoods workshops and in the agricultural workshop, thus highlighting how access to water is a concern across various aspects of everyday life. The water sector workshop provided a space for more indepth analysis of the water supply system. As can be observed in the diagramme below, participants at the water workshop focused on the possible impacts of climate change on boreholes, dams and the pipelines that transport water and sewage.

114

Figure 8: Possible impacts of climate change on the water sector. The red boxes outline the systems that workshop participants chose to focus on, Pipelines for water and sewage, Boreholes and Dams, with the climate change trends (stressors) expected to affect those systems outlined in the blue circles. The arrows point to the specific impacts identified for the different stressors, within the different systems.

Water related concerns relate to decrease in water availability as well as increased water usage, thus highlighting how due to a combination of changing temperatures and rainfall patterns water demand might increase while water supply might decrease. A challenge in relation to current infrastructure, with pipelines being incapable of dealing with increased volumes from more intense heavy rainfall, further highlights the need for water infrastructure development to be centred around more dynamic trends and flexible volumes.

Suggestions made by workshop participants for how to respond to or prepare for such impacts included decreasing water demand through restrictions and awareness, as well as increasing supply by introducing for example water tanks. Introducing more budget for repair of infrastructure was also suggested.

As for the agricultural sector, the water sector hence highlights the importance of preparing for shifts in water supply and water demand. They further highlight the need for infrastructure to be able to deal with shifting water volumes due to the possibility of more intense heavy rainfall events.

115

Health

Health, like water, is a cross-cutting issue that was raised in both the livelihoods workshops and the agricultural workshop. Health practitioners from Letaba and Giyani provided some more indepth insight into what climate change might mean for the health system.

Figure 9: Possible impacts of climate change on human health. The red boxes outline the system that workshop participants chose to focus on, People in Mopani, with the climate change trends (stressors) expected to affect that system outlined in the blue circles. The arrows point to the specific impacts identified for the different stressors, within the different systems.

As can be observed above possible impacts of climate change on the health sector are intricate and many, and the impacts could be organised into impact chains, showing how one impact triggers another. Secondary impacts highlighted relate to a range of issues including spread of various diseases and sicknesses, people working outdoors being affected by dehydration and fatigue, people consuming polluted food and water and food insecurity and malnutrition. Burdened health facilities and loss of lives feature at the end of most of these impact chains. Health practitioners also noted how people who are physically inactive, and thus not very fit, are more sensitive to the impacts of heat stress, and that people with lighter skin are more sensitive to damage from the sun.

With regards to the adaptive capacity that exists to respond to the possible impacts highlighted above, a large number of factors were highlighted, and have thus been listed in the table below. Some of the adaptive capacity outlined relates to lessening the impacts, for example the spread of disease or dehydration and fatigue among farm workers, through a combination of skills, facilities, awareness and regulatory frameworks. Some adaptive capacity also relates to being able to cope in times of

116

crisis, through relief programmes and borrowing of necessary resources. This thus shows that in the health sector there is already a combination of preventative and disaster response capacity.

Table 11: Overview of current adaptive capacity for the health sector. Exposure (climate change Current adaptive capacity trends)

Skilled personnel Protection of products E.g. cover bananas More intense heavy rainfall Disaster management centre Outbreak response teams Borrowing of resources from neighbouring districts Disaster management relief programme in place (provision of tents and clean water)

Law enforcement on Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) Increase in number of extremely Occupational Health and Safety awareness warm days Health facilities Skilled personnel Water tankers Emergency Medical Services in place Disaster management relief programme in place Food relief for animals

Disaster Management

Disaster management, like health and water, is a cross-cutting issue that was raised in both the livelihoods workshops. Disaster managers from Letaba and Giyani provided some more indepth insight into what climate change might mean for disaster management.

117

Figure 10: Possible impacts of climate change on the Disaster Management sector. Workshop participants focused on impacts that cross various systems and sectors, and the red box is therefore referred to as overall disaster management, with the climate change trends (stressors) expected to affect those systems outlined in the blue circles. The arrows point to the specific impacts identified for the different stressors, within the different systems.

As can be observed above possible impacts of climate change on the disaster management could also be organised into impact chains, showing how one impact triggers another. Impacts relate to a variety of aspects, ranging from housing and infrastructure damage to aspects that are important for food security, such as erosion and availability of arable land. Impacts on the quality of life, water supply challenges, roads accessibility, trauma injuries and loss of lives are some of the secondary impacts highlighted.

As was found in the analysis of current vulnerability, the current location of settlements in wind prone areas makes them sensitive to the impacts of strong winds11. The veld is also considered to be sensitive to increase in the frequency of veld fires, as the veld is already prone to fires under current climatic conditions. Some of the adaptive capacity currently in place to deal with these impacts, include fire response plans, early warning systems, planting of wind shields and building of walls, and emergency plans that are in place.

(i) 11 Note that the increase in the frequency and intensity of strong winds was not presented as a climate change trend, it was a conclusion that workshop participants made, based on the trends that were presented.

118

As can be observed in the diagramme above climate change is set to exacerbate some of the challenges that the disaster managers are faced with in the present by increasing the intensity and frequency of current hazards, including fires, flooding and disease outbreaks.

6. VULNERABILITY TO CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE CONTEXT OF CURRENT VULNERABILITY

By bringing together the findings of the livelihoods and sectoral workshops it is possible to create a narrative of how vulnerable people and their activities are to the possible impacts of climate change. In the livelihoods workshops participants focused largely on the impacts of climate change on farming. While highlighting the importance of farming in Letaba and Giyani, it is also again an indication of the perceived importance of climate in agriculture. Especially an increase in the number of extremely warm days was a concern, with subsequent increase in water demand yet possible decrease in water availability. While people, animals and plants requiring more water during extreme heat, being able to keep crops alive, and providing sufficient food and water for people and animals can become a big challenge. Considering the lack of resources and information among small-scale farmers, as highlighted in the analysis of current vulnerability, the extent to which small-scale producers can adapt to such challenges is of concern. Loss of agricultural production and the resulting loss of jobs on commercial farms was another possible impact of concern.

These concerns were to some extent echoed in the agricultural workshop, where extension officers also explored impacts on livestock and crops in more detail. The extension officers also highlighted a long list of low cost, low tech practices that currently contribute to adaptive capacity currently available to deal with the possible climate change impacts. This includes: planting of drought resistant cultivars; sharing of knowledge and information through farmer days and workshops; frequent irrigation and spraying programmes; cattle movement; ploughing and planting across the slopes; construction of gabion baskets and planting of vertiver grass; and the practice of integrated farming systems, with both crops and livestock. Some reliance on emergency response in relation to livestock were also evident, supplementary feeding provided by government and selling of livestock, reflecting the need to build capacity to ensure that livestock have access to grazing and water. Spreading of information and resources that enable the spread of the outlined low tech and low cost practices can thus help build adaptive capacity among small-scale farmers, whose lack of resources and information was highlighted in the analysis of current vulnerability. The issue of water, and the possible decrease in water availability due to increased evaporation and changes in rainfall patterns, was also highlighted by extension officers. The need to secure access to sufficient water, and for the parallel implementation of agricultural practices that lower water requirements was emphasised by extension officers, echoing the key messages from the livelihoods workshops.

The workshop focused on water supply and waste water management further echoed the concerns around decreasing water supply coupled with increasing water demand in the face of a changing climate. Workshop participants indicated that preparing for such shifts will require developing alternative water supply, through for example water tanks, while at the same time working on demand management through awareness raising. The need for water related infrastructure development to be centred around more dynamic trends and variable water volumes was also emphasised.

Health, while not initially a central focus of the livelihoods workshops, came up in relation to various income generating activities, and further emerged as a separate area of concern among participants. For example, in relation to an increase in the number of extremely warm days there were concerns related to an increase in skin diseases among farmers and hawkers. For hawkers there was also concerns that consumers may be affected by increasing temperatures, and thus be unable to come to markets and stalls. The impact of heat on vegetables and other foods was also highlighted, and becomes particularly important in the context of limited storage facilitates and proper stalls, as highlighted in the analysis of current vulnerability. Participants at the health sector workshop pointed out how consumption of unsafe foods is already a problem under present conditions, and in the context of projections of rising temperatures this could become an increasing problem. High blood pressure, diarrhoea, dehydration, fatigue and increase in diseases like malaria were other impacts highlighted at both the community and health workshops. In terms of current adaptive capacity to deal with such impacts, aspects highlighted at the health workshop include skills,

119

facilities, awareness and regulatory frameworks, as well as some emergency response measures. The adaptation responses that were subsequently proposed highlighted the need to lessen the possible impacts, by for example distribution of mosquito nets, and making communities more resilient by for example ensuring that they have access to back-up sources of clean water.

A link between climate change and health was also made at the disaster management sector workshop, with disease outbreaks highlighted as a possible consequence of both increase in average temperatures and more intense heavy rainfall. Other key aspects of disaster management considered to be vulnerable to projected climate change include infrastructure and food production. Concerns related to the vulnerability of infrastructure also came out strongly in the livelihoods workshops, with damage to houses, roads and bridges due to wind and intense heavy rainfall being key concerns. For example, damage to bridges might put children who have to cross rivers on their way to school at risk. As was further emphasised in the disaster management workshop, damage to roads and bridges can cut communities off, can disturb service delivery to communities and in worst case lead to loss of lives. Disaster management officials highlighted fire response plans, early warning systems, planting of wind shields and building of walls, and emergency plans as key components of current adaptive capacity. Proposed adaptation responses to deal with projected climate change included better preparedness to respond through planning and awareness, as well as more focus on early warning systems. Suggested adaptation responses also illustrate an attempt to lesson impacts through improved quality of building structures, as well as the amendment and enforcement of various government regulations.

7. CONCLUDING REMARKS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This vulnerability assessment set out to create an understanding of the local dynamics shaping livelihoods and sectors in Letaba and Giyani, and of how climate change might impact these. The participatory vulnerability assessment approach has enabled the gathering of rich local knowledge. It has also shown how the reality is complex and inter-connected, and not necessarily as clean cut as researchers would like it to be.

From the assessment some priority focus areas for assisting vulnerable groups to take action in the face of climate change have emerged. While it is important to note that these priorities are not exhaustive, as they are based on the interaction with a set number of local stakeholders (111), they create a picture of the main areas which stakeholders themselves perceive as beings vulnerable to the impacts of climate change:

Insufficient access to clean water: Increase in average temperatures and increase in extreme temperatures will lead to increase in water demand, with people, plants and animals all requiring more water. Yet a subsequent increase in evaporation due to higher temperatures will decrease water supply. Water supply may be put under further pressure due to an increase in the intensity of heavy rainfall events, as infrastructure is unable to deal with the increase in volumes and turbidity, leading to mixing of water and sewage and foreign materials entering the water supply system.

Reduced food security: The area‟s agricultural productivity and quality, in terms of both livestock and crops, is at risk in the face of projected climate change. Increase in average temperatures and the number of days with extreme temperatures, coupled with a shift towards rainfall falling in shorter and more intense events, can lead to heat stress, water scarcity as well as flooding and erosion. This may result in decreased grazing capacity and subsequent livestock mortality, as well as wilting and loss of crop harvests. At the same time, high intensity rainfall events can lead to soil erosion, as well as water logging of crops and grazing areas. Increasing temperatures may also lead to the introduction of or increased spread of pests, such as chilo, a moth that causes damage to fruits.

Additional health challenges: Climate change may put people‟s health under stress, due to both direct and indirect impacts of increasing average temperatures and increase in days with extreme temperatures. Direct exposure to heat can lead to high blood pressure, diarrhoea associated with dehydration and fatigue. Increasing temperatures can also lead to the spread of disease, through for example the spread of mosquitos carrying malaria into areas that were previously too cold for transmission.

120

Economic losses for small businesses & traders: The running of small businesses and traders might become increasingly challenging in the face of climate change, as increasing temperatures impacts products for which there is insufficient cooling storage. Sales of food that is unfit for human consumption due lack of access to appropriate cooling storage is already a problem in the present, and increasing temperatures will compound this problem. The health of traders without proper stalls or outlets may also be impacted by the heat.

Damage to infrastructure: Communities in Mopani are set to be put under further stress as infrastructure damage from high intensity rainfall events wash away roads and bridges, cutting communities off from economic hubs and service delivery. There is also potential for damage to housing and in the worst cases drowning of humans and livestock.

8. REFERENCES

Bekele, W., & Drake, L, 2003. Soil and water conservation decision behaviour of subsistence farmers in the Eastern Highlands of Ethiopia: a case study of the Hunde-Lafto area. Ecological Economics, 46: 437-451

Davies, C, Stevens, N, Archer, E, Sinden, L and Nkambule, C, 2010. Engaging stakeholders in global change risk and vulnerability planning: a case study of the Kruger to Canyons Biosphere Region. CSIR report Reference: NE02-PO-F

Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA), 2013a. Long-Term Adaptation Scenarios (LTAS) Research Programme for South Africa. Climate Trends and Scenarios for South Africa. Pretoria, South Africa

Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA), 2013b. Long-Term Adaptation Scenarios (LTAS) Research Programme for South Africa. Factsheet 5, Climate Change and Human Health. Pretoria, South Africa

Deutsche Gesellschaft fur international Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), 2011. Integrating Climate Change Adaptation into Development Planning. A practice-orientated training based on an OECD Policy Guidance. Bonn, Germany

Greater Giyani Local Municipality (GGLM), 2013. Greater Giyani Municipality Integrated Development Plan 2013/14 [Accessed at http://www.greatergiyani.gov.za/]

Greater Letaba Local Municipality (GLLM), 2013. Greater Letaba Municipality Integrated Development Plan 2013/14 [Accessed at http://www.greaterletaba.gov.za/]

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2014: Summary for policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea,T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA

Luers, A L, Lobell, D B, Sklar, L S, Addams, C L and Matson, P A, 2003. A method for quantifying vulnerability, applied to the agricultural system of the Yaqui Valley, Mexico. Global Environmental Change, 13: 255- 267

121

Maponya, P and Mpandeli, S, 2012a. Climate Change and Agricultural Production in South Africa: Impacts and Adaptation options. Journal of Agricultural Science, 4(10): 48-60

Maponya, P and Mpandeli, S, 2012b. Climate Change Adaptation Strategies used by Limpopo Province Farmers in South Africa. Journal of Agricultural Science, 4(12): 39-47

Mopani District Municipality (MDM), 2008. Reviewed Integrated Development Plan2006-2011

Mopani District Municipality (MDM), 2010. Reviewed Integrated Development Plan2006-2013, version 5

NETGroup South Africa, 2012a. Disaster Risk Assessment and Disaster Risk Reduction Measures – Greater Giyani Local Municipality. Report developed for the Limpopo Provincial Government – Department of Co-operative Governance, Human Settlements & Traditional Affairs

NETGroup South Africa, 2012b. Disaster Risk Assessment and Disaster Risk Reduction Measures – Greater Letaba Local Municipality. Report developed for the Limpopo Provincial Government – Department of Co-operative Governance, Human Settlements & Traditional Affairs

Thompson, A A, Matamale, L and Khari:dza, S D, 2012. Impact of Climate Change on Children‟s Health in Limpopo Province, South Africa. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 9(3): 831 – 854 [accessed at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3367281/]

Turpie, J and Visser, M, 2012. Chapter 4: The impact of climate change on South Africa’s rural areas. Technical Report: Submission for the 2013/14 Division of Revenue. Published by the Financial and Fiscal Commission. Accessed at http://www.ffc.co.za/index.php/reports/technical-reports [ 20 March 2014]

UKCIP, 2010. The UKCIP Adaptation Wizard V 3.0. UKCIP, Oxford

122

Annex II.2: Namakwa Profile Vulnerability Assessment

Namakwa District Municipality Climate Change Adaptation Small Grants Facility: Profile report for the Adaptation Fund

March 2014 Introduction to the Namakwa District

In South Africa, resources are limited and unequally distributed across the country and across different social groups. This results in large numbers of people lacking what they need to effectively adapt to climate change. South Africa is also likely to be greatly impacted by climate change in the future, in terms of rising temperatures and changes in rainfall patterns. This is particularly so in the arid north-west of the country, where the Namakwa District Municipality (NDM) is located.

The 126 836 km² District is the largest is the country and home to spectacular biodiversity of global importance. Home also to around 126 700 people, the District has the lowest population density in the country at more or less 1 person per km2. The economy of the NDM is based on agriculture (sheep, goats, and, increasingly, game, with irrigated cropping limited to the banks of the Orange River) and mining. Productivity in both of these sectors is declining. Widespread poverty, lack of access to shelter and safe water and sanitation, food insecurity, drought, and land degradation is prevalent in most of the Northern Cape. High levels of poverty are due to high unemployment rates, which in turn is a result of job-shedding on stock farms, increasing numbers of game farms which utilize large areas of land but employ relatively few staff, and the downscaling of mines. The low population density means little attention for the area from national government and large geographic areas translate into limited access to markets, basic services, health care and education. A large proportion of the population lives in rural areas and is dependent on communal rangelands for their livelihoods.

Already drought prone and suffering from extreme heat in the summer months, the NDM is projected to be hotter and drier in the future. In addition, surface and underground water supplies are increasingly over-utilised and further threatened by climate change. An increase in aridity due to climate change could exacerbate unemployment, water scarcity, and difficulties with agricultural productivity.

Background to the Adaptation Fund Small Grants Facility

The Adaptation Fund was established as a means to finance adaptation programmes and projects in developing countries that are parties to the Kyoto Protocol. Conservation South Africa (CSA) and the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) are currently working on submitting a final proposal for funding to the Adaptation Fund. The original project concept is Taking Adaptation to the Ground: A Small Grants Facility for enabling local level responses to climate change. This Small Grants Facility will aim to ensure that appropriate and effective local adaptation measures are developed and implemented for supporting increased resilience of vulnerable groups and long term

123

sustainable livelihoods – taking into account short- and long-term climate forecasts. The emphasis of the project will be to support projects that generate tangible adaptation responses, with a particular focus on rural areas.

Due to the NDM‟s susceptibility to climate change and the vulnerability of its communities, CSA and SANBI are targeting the NDM as one of the beneficiary landscapes for the Small Grants Facility. Projects funded through the facility will ensure direct access to climate change benefits for local communities affected by the impacts of climate variability and change.

Expected Climate Change Impacts in the Namakwa District

In 2012, CSA conducted a climate change vulnerability assessment (VA) for the NDM which included identifying the climate change impacts that the District could expect in the medium term future. Recent projections from the Climate Systems Analysis Group, the Centre for Scientific and Industrial Research, and the South African Long Term Adaptation Scenarios confirm the trends captured in the VA. Temperatures in the region have increased slightly on average over the last 40 years based on South African Weather Services data obtained by CSA. In the NDM VA, increasing temperatures are predicted to 2050 in all scenarios, particularly along the Orange River and the south-central interior (Midgley and Holness, 2012). Drastic increases in temperature of up to 6° are projected for the region by the end of the century, forecasting temperatures well beyond the natural historical temperature variability of the region (DEA 1, 2013).

Changes in rainfall expected as a result of climate change are more difficult to predict. Many projections suggest a pattern of drying along the West Coast of the South Africa, including the NDM. However, rainfall in the NDM is very variable (for example Vioolsdrif on the Orange River may receive anything from 0 to 150mm of rainfall in a year) and „the projected rainfall anomalies remain within the realm of present day climate‟ (DEA 1, 2013:121). Regardless, increasing temperatures will increase evaporation and evapo-transpiration, increasing aridity in the region overall and negatively affecting water quality and water availability.

The people, animals, and ecosystems of the NDM are already drought and heat adapted as a result of the natural historical climate of the region. However, the drastic increases in temperature and aridity projected by Midgley and Holness (2012) and DEA 1 (2013) begs the question of how hot and dry is too hot and dry, what are the region‟s thresholds?

Fire is part of the system in the Fynbos nodes throughout the District. CSIR, as part of the GEF funded Fynbos Fire Project, is comparing the frequencies of synoptic patterns, conditions conducive to large fires a week and also a season ahead, under current and future climates to determine whether the likelihood of conditions that favour fires will increase. Results suggest the burning season will become longer with an increase in the number high fire danger days per month (Forsyth, 2013). These changes would be attributed to increases in temperature and aridity projected for the region. According to the VA, however, Fynbos nodes in Namakwa may recede under climate change. There is a clear gradual trend demonstrating local sea level rise along the Namakwa coast. This is likely linked to either an increase in the number or the intensity of low pressure cells off the coast causing a doming effect on the ocean surface (Mather, Garland, and Stretch, 2009). The same impacts could lead to storm surge activity such as was experienced in Port Nolloth in 2009. The high intensity coastline, with a steep rocky profile, is relatively less sensitive to wave action than softer, flatter coastlines, and there is relatively little valuable infrastructure along the Namakwa coast as compared with the rest of South Africa. There are however some specific vulnerabilities linked to local fishing and diamond dredging fleets, as well as ground water aquifers and coastal estuaries that may be damaged by inundation.

Vulnerability Assessment Priority Areas Part of the purpose of the VA was to identify priority areas in the NDM for Ecosystem-based

Adaptation (EbA) to climate change. Some features in the landscape are more likely to resilience to climate change than others and these were mapped as good candidates for supporting climate change adaptation in the region. These features include riparian corridors and buffers, coastal corridors, areas with temperature, rainfall and altitudinal gradients, high biodiversity areas, south-

124

facing slopes and kloofs, and large unfragmented landscapes (Midgley and Holness, 2012). Keeping these areas in a natural or near-natural state will allow ecosystems and species to adapt naturally to climate change as far as possible, thus supporting healthy landscapes and the ability of ecosystems to continue to provide ecosystem services. They should be considered vital elements of South Africa‟s ecological infrastructure in the face of climate change, underpinning local EbA.

EbA has been defined by the Convention on Biological Diversity as „the use of biodiversity and ecosystem-services as part of an overall adaptation strategy to help people to adapt to the adverse effects of climate change‟. As such, this mapping exercise also included a focus on relevant socio- economic indicators that can also inform this process. A disaster management survey conducted with 52 settlements throughout the NDM was used to determine whether there were particular areas that were more vulnerable than others in terms of their exposure to weather-related disaster risk. Coastal communities and those living along the Orange River are more vulnerable overall due to their remote location and exposure to a greater number of environmental risks, such as storm surges and catastrophic flooding respectively. The important landscape features for supporting climate change resilience were then combined with layers for areas most important for providing water in the NDM, communal farming areas important for supporting community livelihoods, and proximity to towns for the maximum ecosystem service delivery for people. A priority map for EbA in the NDM was created and is shown below.

Figure 1: EbA priority areas map for the Namakwa District (Midgley and Holness, 2012)

Stakeholder mapping and engagement

To enable broader engagement with climate change adaptation beyond EbA, CSA began a stakeholder engagement process in 2013. This began with 9 workshops with local government – 2 at the District level and 7 and the local municipal level – based in the Let‟s Respond Toolkit (DEA 2, 2012). These sessions were focused on integrating climate change risks and opportunities into municipal planning through strategic integration of the topic into the Integrated Development Plans for each municipality and through project design and budgeting. Later in 2013 and in early 2014, linked with Adaptation Fund proposal development, CSA and SANBI began to engage directly with affected community groups, local NGOs and CBOs, and relevant government departments and research and development institutions. The goal of all of these engagements has been to develop a sensible, strategic, effective, stakeholder engaged strategy for climate change adaptation in the NDM.

On 27 November 2013 an initial engagement session was held in Cape Town at the AGM of the Northern Cape Regional Network, a network of NGOs and CBOs active across the Northern Cape including the NDM. Stakeholder mapping started at this meeting, where participants were asked to confirm that the list of stakeholders CSA and SANBI had compiled was made up of relevant organisations, and to expand this list with additional organisations they are aware of and working with.

125

After a short input on expected climate change impacts in the region, the group was asked to prepare some comments on good adaptation actions for the NDM.

On 13 February 2014 a second, larger stakeholder engagement session was held in Springbok and attended by 61 representatives of 38 locally active institutions. After inputs on the Adaptation Fund and Small Grants Facility, climate change and local impacts, and understanding community-based adaptation, much of the day was spent in interactive sessions identifying focus areas and appropriate actions for local level climate change adaptation in the NDM. The stakeholder mapping exercise was also completed at this meeting.

Figure 2: Stakeholder Map of the CBOs, NGOs, and Community Groups active in the NDM who completed the mapping exercise at the 13 Feb 2014 meeting

Many more organisations, institutions, research and implementation partners, and community groups were contacted for their preliminary inputs over the phone and by email. Their submissions and suggestions are also included in this profile report.

126

Adaptation Priorities from Stakeholder Engagements

At the April 2013 Let‟s Respond inception meeting with local government, some strategic priority areas for climate change response emerged and were captured to inform project design. These are shown in the diagram below:

Figure 3: Namakwa District climate change adaptation priority response areas, as defined by local government officials in 2013

Since this inception meeting, 10 stakeholder engagement sessions have taken place (8 local government climate response planning workshops, and 2 Adaptation Fund proposal planning sessions). The above Strategic Directions have remained the same – all the stakeholder groups, when asked to think about adapting to climate change, have similar priorities in mind for the NDM. They have, however, been refined somewhat by further discussion with an increasing number of stakeholders. These Stakeholder Priorities for climate adaptation in Namakwa are, as captured above, Water Scarcity, Awareness and Education, Sustainable Infrastructure, Sustainable Livelihoods, Disaster Risk Reduction, and Biodiversity Management for ecosystem service delivery.

127

Figure 4: Refined schematic of NDM adaptation priorities following expanded stakeholder engagement

These are the similar to and certainly fall within the same broad categories as the indicative project ideas listed in the original proposal to the Adaptation Fund.

Global Adaptation Fund Eligibility and Project Selection Criteria

The Global Adaptation Fund is looking to support projects that increase the resilience of vulnerable groups and long term sustainable livelihoods, with an emphasis on projects that generate tangible adaptation responses in rural areas. The integration of scientific and local knowledge is an area of particular interest. Reduced vulnerability of local communities to existing and anticipated impacts of climate change may be achieved through strengthened livelihood strategies, increased adaptive capacity, and building ecosystem resilience, amongst other approaches. Listed below are criteria for the selection of small grant recipients and for the assessment of the climate adaptation projects they will submit for funding.

Criteria for Small Grant Recipients (Note: these criteria have since been updated, based on stakeholder feedback – see Section II.A of Community Adaptation SGF Full Project Proposal) Grant recipients must be South African institutions with a proven project implementation track record Grant recipients will have worked on human development and/or climate change response projects previously Grant recipients must have a sound record of good governance and financial management Grant recipient project management structures must include women as well as men, and should show a commitment to BBEEE Grant recipients will have established long standing relationships with communities in the District Grant recipients will have a clear mandate from project beneficiaries to work in the project focal area, and this mandate will be aligned with project investments

128

Grant recipients will demonstrate willingness to participate in learning and knowledge development and dissemination processes No duplication of funds

Criteria for Project Selection: Projects must clearly demonstrate that they respond to a particular climate change or climate variability threat/s as identified in the Vulnerability Assessment Projects must support concrete actions and deliver tangible results that increase resilience to climate variability and change in vulnerable groups Projects must be implemented in rural or semi-rural areas and support grass root communities and especially women Projects must responds to the needs of vulnerable people and be located within the broader development context (provide economic, social, and/or environmental co-benefits) Projects will beneficiate groups rather than single individuals Projects must be designed so that they are replicable and scalable Projects must clearly demonstrate how success will be measured Projects must clearly demonstrate how they will maintain sustainability after the SGF funding ends Projects must demonstrate willingness to support learning outcomes and inform processes to scale up and replicate approaches in other communities

Additionally: Projects are encouraged to provide benefits across different sectors Where relevant, projects are required to demonstrate sustainable land tenure arrangements Projects are encourages to support sustainable partnerships

The Adaptation Fund is looking to fund projects that address a very clear climate change related threat and have a clear and demonstrable link to tangible, measurable, visible adaptation for people. Simple projects with real impacts that generate a public good for communities or groups rather than individuals will be favoured.

The Adaptation Fund will not fund: Projects that cannot demonstrate clearly that they directly respond to climate risks Projects that do not result in tangible, measurable adaptation benefits for people – this includes any project that is only awareness and education, only planning, or only research without feeding into an implemented activity.

Small Grants Facility for Adaptation: Investment Priorities

The key climate change related risks that the Namakwa District is facing are related to increasing temperatures and increasing aridity. These lead to heat stress and water stress (both in terms of water availability and water quality) for people, as well as the plants and animals that are the foundation of a high percentage of the region‟s livelihoods. Severe weather events, such as droughts, floods, storm surge, and fire could be very serious climate related risks in some areas at certain times. The Investment Priorities summarised here seek to address these climate risks and will inform project selection for funding through the small grants facility.

Investment Priority: Agriculture and Food Security 95% of land in the Namakwa District is actively utilised for agricultural pursuits – mostly small stock farming. A large percentage of the population is engaged in farming and directly dependent on this for their livelihoods. Agriculture is likely to be affected by drought, heat stress in plants and animals, as well as water quality concerns. Coastal communities dependent on fishing activities that are likely to be affected by climate change are also included here.

Investment Priority: Human Settlements There are 52 rural human settlements in the NDM. Typically, human settlements in Namakwa are clustered closely, usually around a water source. The region has a population of around 126 000 and

129

settlements are often isolated. Human settlements are likely to be affected by heat stress in people (particularly the very young and very old) and water stress both in terms of water availability and water quality as a result of climate change. Coastal settlements may be increasingly at risk from storm surge, and settlements are vulnerable to flooding after long periods of drought.

Investment Priority: Ecological Infrastructure Ecological infrastructure refers to the functioning ecosystems in a landscape that deliver valuable services to people, such as water and grazing. Investing in ecological infrastructure is intended to manage, maintain, and sometimes restore the ecosystems functions and services that support climate resilient livelihoods.

Ensuring Benefits Accrue to the Most Vulnerable

Defining vulnerability and ensuring that climate vulnerable groups benefit most from project activities is one of the core challenges the SGF will face. Vulnerability in the climate change arena refers to the degree to which a population is susceptible to, or unable to cope with, the adverse effects of climate change, variability, and extremes. Vulnerability is made up of features related to the character, magnitude, and rate of climate impact the population is exposed to, the internal characteristics of the population that influence how affected by, or sensitive to, the impact it is, as well as the population‟s capacity to adapt to a changing climate or one characterised by climate extremes (www.ipcc.ch/pub/syrgloss.pdf).

At the 13 February 2014 stakeholder meeting it emerged that defining vulnerability is complex, sensitive, and occasionally politically charged. It is not easy to define who the most vulnerable groups are and an agreed definition of the term is needed to inform project implementation. Nonetheless, small scale farmers and coastal communities were identified as vulnerable groups generally. Stakeholders suggested water shortage, income, food security measures, and level of education might be appropriate indicators, but it was agreed that poverty and vulnerability are neither straightforward nor static conditions.

Group discussions with stakeholders resulted in the following broad ideas on ensuring that the most vulnerable groups, however defined, are the main beneficiaries of any Adaptation Fund:

1. Research (needs assessment) is needed as a first step to identify the groups and their needs. This could include questionnaires in schools and ECD centres, door to door surveys, talking with local leaders/elders, or focus groups. The focus of this research should be on problem definition, problem solving and project design. 2. Challenges, solutions, and sustainable project ideas should be identified by the beneficiary communities themselves. 3. Pilot projects may benefit from implementation where it has a good chance of succeeding, rather than focusing exclusively on the MOST VULNERABLE and having projects fail for logistical reasons. 4. Following SMART project design – specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and time-bound (the group also added EcoFriendly) – will ensure tangible results are achieved and scientific and local knowledge are well integrated. 5. Project implementers should ensure broad participation but work with beneficiary groups to establish agreed upon processes that enable any benefits to flow first to those who need them the most, as defined by the community themselves and not by outsiders. 6. Using accessible and easy to understand messaging around projects will ensure that people of all age groups, gender, cultural groups, and levels of education will be able to participate meaningfully. 7. Good communication, frequent review and reflection (monitoring), and regular lessons sharing is critical for ensuring that projects are achieving their intended goals and benefitting the intended groups. Sharing lessons on what has worked is valuable, but sharing lessons on things that did not work so well perhaps even more so.

130

Conclusion

Through engagement with a wide range of stakeholders on the subject of climate change response in Namakwa over several years, 3 Investment Priorities for climate change adaptation planning and project design have been identified. These are Climate Resilient Agriculture and Food Security, Climate Resilient Human Settlements, and Climate Resilient Ecological Infrastructure. The Global Adaptation Fund Small Grants Facility provides an opportunity to explore concrete projects with tangible results for local rural populations within some or all of these Investment Priorities.

Supporting Documentation and References

Supporting documents

Workshop reports from April and October 2013 climate change response planning with the Namakwa District

Workshop reports from June, August, September, and November 2013 climate response planning with the Namakwa local municipalities

Meeting notes from December 2013 meeting with the Northern Cape NGO Network

Meeting report from February 2014 Adaptation Fund Small Grants Facility stakeholder engagement session

References Bourne A, Donatti C, Holness S, and Midgly G. 2012. Climate change vulnerability assessment for the Namakwa District Municipality. Full technical report - Conservation South Africa. Cape Town, South Africa.

DEA 1 (Department of Environmental Affairs). 2013. Long-Term Adaptation Scenarios Flagship Research Programme (LTAS) for South Africa. Climate Trends and Scenarios for South Africa. Pretoria, South Africa.

DEA 2 (Department of Environmental Affairs, Department of Cooperative Governance, and the South African Local Government Association). 2012. Let’s Respond: A toolkit to integrating climate change risk and opportunities into municipal planning. Pretoria, South Africa.

Forsyth, G. 2013. Information management, fire research and modelling, and fire risk assessment: Abridged progress report. CSIR Natural Resources and the Environment, Stellenbosch

Mather, A, G. Garland, and D Stretch. 2009. Southern African Sea Levels: corrections, influences, and trends in African Journal of Marine Science 31(2)

Midgley, G, and S Holness. 2012. Bio-physical impacts of climate change for the Namakwa District: Expert Report, in Bourne A, Donatti C, Holness S, and Midgley G. 2012. Climate change vulnerability assessment for the Namakwa District Municipality. Full technical report - Conservation South Africa. Cape Town, South Africa.

131

Annex III: Letters of support

Annex III.1 DEA request of support for the selection of the MDM as a pilot site

132

133

134

Annex III.2 Municipal Manager letter of support of the MDM as a pilot site

135

Annex IV: Attendance Registers

Annex IV.1 Namakwa stakeholder workshop 13 February 2014

136

137

138

139

Annex IV.2 Mopani meeting to introduce the Community Adaptation SGF to the MDM 14 February 2014

140

Annex IV.3 Mopani meeting with MDM executive committee 07 March 2014

141

142

Annex IV.4 Mopani proposal development process workshop 03 April 2014

143

144

Annex IV.5 Mopani water vulnerability assessment workshop 10 April 2014

145

146

Annex IV.6 Mopani disaster management vulnerability assessment workshop 11 April 2014

147

148

Annex IV.7 Mopani extension officer vulnerability assessment workshop 14 April 2014

149

150

Annex IV.8 Letaba CDWs vulnerability assessment workshop 22 May 2014

151

152

153

Annex IV.9 Giyani CDWs vulnerability assessment workshop 26 May 2014

154

155

156

Annex IV.10 Mopani health vulnerability assessment workshop 28 May 2014

157

158

159

Annex IV.11 Mopani stakeholder workshop 13 June 2014

160

161

162

163

Annex V: Discussion Document

South African Adaptation Fund project

Taking Adaptation to the Ground: A Small Grants Facility for Enabling Local Level Responses to Climate Change

Project Discussion Document

Prepared by the SANBI NIE, SouthSouthNorth and Conservation South Africa

25 July 2014

164

Table of Contents

1. Introduction and high level overview of project ...... 2. Small Grants Facility Investment Windows ...... 2.1 Climate change analysis based on observed data and climate change projections ...... 2.2 Vulnerability Assessments ...... 2.3 Investment Windows ...... 3. Selection criteria: Small grant recipients and adaptation projects ...... 4. Roles and Responsibilities ...... 5. Oversight, Governance and Coordination ...... 6. Project identification, approval and contracting processes ......

Acronyms

ACDI African Climate and Development Initiative AF Adaptation Fund AFB Adaptation Fund Board CBO Community Based Organisation CSA Conservation South Africa Letaba Greater Letaba Local Municipality EE Executing Entity FA Facilitating Agency Giyani Greater Giyani Local Municipality LTAS Long Term Adaptation Scenarios NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NIE National Implementing Entity SANBI South African National Biodiversity Institute SGF Small Grants Facility SSN SouthSouthNorth UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

165

Glossary

Adaptation The process of adjustment to actual or expected climate and its effects. In human systems, adaptation seeks to moderate harm or exploit beneficial opportunities. In natural systems, human intervention may facilitate adjustment to expected climate and its effects (IPCC, 2014 12). Adaptive capacity The ability of a system to adjust to climate change, including climate variability and extremes to moderate potential damages, to take advantage of opportunities, or to cope with the consequences (IPCC, 200713). Climate Change Climate change refers to the long-term shift in weather patterns. Climate change can be caused by natural causes, such as volcanic eruptions, or human causes, such as greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of petrol. Global warming, which is the general increase in temperature caused by human-related greenhouse gas emissions, is one type of climate change (Lets Respond Toolkit). Climate variability Climate variability refers to the way climate variables such as rainfall and temperature, depart from the average state, either above or below average in an area without changing the long term average. For example, a certain area might have an average summer temperature of 21 degrees Celsius but the daily temperature can range between 15-30 degrees ( Lets Respond Toolkit). Climate change The consequences of climate change on a human or natural system. For Impacts example, climate change impacts would result in less rain in an area but this could result in drought, crop failure, famine, etc. (Lets Respond Toolkit). Ecological Ecological infrastructure refers to strategically planned and managed Infrastructure networks of natural lands, working landscapes and other open spaces that conserve ecosystem values and functions and provide associated benefits to society. Exposure The presence of people, livelihoods, species or ecosystems, environmental services and resources, infrastructure, or economic, social, or cultural assets in places that could be adversely affected (IPCC, 2014). Mitigation In the context of climate change, a human intervention to reduce the sources or enhance the sinks of greenhouse gases. Examples include using fossil fuels more efficiently for industrial processes or electricity generation, switching to solar energy or wind power, and expanding forests and other "sinks" to remove greater amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere (IPCC, 2007). Resilience The ability of a social or ecological system to absorb disturbances while retaining the same basic structure and ways of functioning, the capacity for self-organisation, and the capacity to adapt to stress and change. A resilient system is one that is better able to cope with change and can recover quickly (Lets Respond toolkit). Vulnerability The propensity or predisposition to be adversely affected. Vulnerability encompasses a variety of concepts including sensitivity or susceptibility to harm and lack of capacity to cope and adapt (IPCC, 2014).

12 Van Aalst et al, 2014. IPCC working group II, AR 5, Technical Summary Report: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability 13 Bernstein et al, 2007. IPCC working group II AR 4, Summary Report: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability

166

1. INTRODUCTION AND HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW OF PROJECT

The Adaptation Fund (AF) was established to finance concrete adaptation projects and programmes in developing countries that are parties to the Kyoto Protocol and are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change. Funds are accessed via implementing entities that are responsible for endorsing project and programme proposals. As part of its intention to promote direct access, the AF strongly promotes direct country access via National Implementing Entities. The South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) was accredited as South Africa‟s National Implementing Entity (NIE) to the AF in September 2011.

After establishing a high level NIE Steering Committee and a NIE Investment Framework including a set of policies and procedures to guide its work, the NIE issued a call for concept proposals in November 2012. The response to this call, which closed at the end of January 2013, was overwhelming. Over 70 diverse proposals were received. With the support of the NIE Steering Committee and an associated task team, these were subjected to a process of careful review and evaluation. This review was based on key criteria drawn from the Investment Framework and based on guidelines provided by the Adaptation Fund Board (AFB).

Through this process, two Project Concepts were selected for further development and submission to the AFB for support. These Project Concepts were approved by the AFB in June 2013. The second of these will be a Small Grants Facility (SGF) project that will contract interface agencies to work with vulnerable communities and support them to develop small projects (~USD 100,000 each) in two diverse target areas, i.e. Mopani District Municipality in Limpopo Province and Namakwa District Municipality in the Northern Cape. SouthSouthNorth Trust (SSN) has been identified as the Executing Entity (EE) for the SGF project and the Facilitating Agency (FA) in Namakwa will be Conservation South Africa (CSA). The FA for Mopani is still to be selected. The amount requested for the SGF project is USD 2,442,682.

The overall goal of the project is to ensure that local communities in the project target areas have reduced vulnerability and increased resilience to the anticipated impacts of climate variability and change. The objective is to incorporate climate change adaptation response strategies into local practices so that assets, livelihoods and ecosystem services are protected from climate induced risks associated with expected droughts, seasonal shifts and storm-related disaster events. To do so, the project will seek to increase climate resilience in productive landscapes and socio-economic systems in communities in two district municipalities in South Africa, by working directly with local stakeholders and anticipated beneficiaries through a SGF.

In addition to delivering direct and tangible benefits through the implementation of the small grants themselves, the project will seek to pilot and develop an understanding of small grant development and implementation in the context of climate finance, with a view to scaling up and replicating this model as appropriate. This approach responds directly to calls from civil society to bring the principle of „direct access‟ closer to vulnerable communities, thus empowering them to determine how climate finance will be used, and to build the institutional capacity for the implementation of adaptation efforts at the local level.

It is believed that one of the most important success factors for the SGF project will be its processes of project identification, development, review and learning along with the processes that are to be put in place to build local capacity and support project implementation. With this in mind, the SGF project will comprise three components as follows: Component 1: Small grants – Small grants to vulnerable communities deliver tangible and sustainable benefits. Component 2: Institutional capacity – Local institutions empowered to identify and implement adaptation response measures. Component 3: Lessons learnt – Lessons learnt facilitate future up-scaling and replication of small grant-financing approaches.

167

Component 1: Small grants – Small grants to vulnerable communities deliver tangible and sustainable benefits

This component will support planning and implementation of adaptation responses by vulnerable communities in the Mopani and Namakwa District Municipalities. This will be achieved through a suite of interventions that are supported through at least 12 small grants to local level civil society organisations. Each small grant will be approximately USD 100,000. The small grants may be phased and will be disbursed in tranches to ensure sound implementation processes and effective integration of project-level monitoring and evaluation. All small grants will deliver tangible and measurable benefits that reduce the vulnerabilities of local communities to existing and anticipated impacts of climate change through strengthened livelihood strategies, increased adaptive capacity and ecosystem resilience. The SGF project will encourage and facilitate the sharing of knowledge on best practices from the local to the national level.

Component 2: Institutional capacity – Local institutions empowered to identify and implement adaptation response measures

This component will focus on supporting local institutions to identify, develop and implement small grants projects in the context of climate change adaptation at all stages of the project cycle. Under this component, the FAs will work with small grant recipients to facilitate sound project identification, development and implementation support processes including local level project administration, reporting and financial management. These processes will be guided by a set of principles that ensure that projects clearly respond to experienced or anticipated climate induced stresses, and meet the criteria of the SGF, NIE and AF.

Component 3: Lessons learnt – Lessons learnt facilitate future up-scaling and replication of small grant-financing approaches

To facilitate the proposed learning and reflection approach successfully, the SGF project will ensure that local organisations play an effective role in supporting project development and implementation. Additionally, it will be imperative to document the process to ensure that the lessons learnt inform the compilation of a methodology that identifies effective strategies and policy recommendations for scaling up and replication. In support of this, the SGF project will support innovative participatory approaches, including a practitioners‟ forum to discuss effective approaches of community empowerment and challenges, and a community forum, to discuss climate change adaptation challenges and possible integrated adaptation strategies. It will also seek to build local knowledge sharing mechanisms that create opportunities for reflection and learning within Districts and between Districts. These mechanisms will link into the relevant national adaptation processes with a view to developing insights that are relevant beyond the project intervention sites themselves. Independent learning processes will be conducted to reflect on implementation successes and challenges, and to develop insights. Learning outputs from the small grants projects will align with and support national and local government climate change response strategies, and will look to inform Provincial adaptation plans where possible. Where relevant, policy recommendations will be developed to inform the development of local level climate finance instruments in South Africa, with a view to creating a long term small grant facility for supporting climate change adaptation in vulnerable communities.

2. SMALL GRANTS FACILITY INVESTMENT WINDOWS

The SGF project will invest in climate change adaptation interventions that fall within prioritised Investment Windows that were derived from local level climate projections (Section 2.1) and the findings of Vulnerability Assessments (Section 2.2) that were undertaken in each of the project target areas. This process supported the identification of impacts and risks to sectors, based on stakeholder input and contextualisation of climate-driven changes. Possible adaptation responses to the identified risks, proposed by local level stakeholders, were suggested over the course of the Vulnerability Assessment development and are noted in Section 4. The risks to the highlighted sectors and adaptation responses were then collated and informed the identification of the SGF Project Investment Windows (Section 2.3). The process of Investment Window identification is shown in Figure 1.

168

Figure 1: The identification of the Investment Windows was based on climate projections and Vulnerability Assessment findings.

2.1 Climate change analysis based on observed data and climate change projections

The climate analysis is based on the latest climate change projections, prepared under South Africa‟s Long Term Adaptation Scenarios (LTAS) Flagship Research Programme14 Phase 1 process15. The LTAS data analysis includes historical trends, as well as statistically and dynamically downscaled projections for South Africa. In order to get a good understanding of the local scale projections for the two project target areas, a study was commissioned for a spatially specific analysis of data from the downscaled projections produced under the LTAS16. A full analysis report, currently being developed by the African Climate and Development Initiative (ACDI) at the University of Cape Town, and will be included in the appendix of the final SGF project proposal.

Results from a South African trend analysis, conducted under South Africa‟s LTAS Phase 1 process17, provide up to date insight into historical temperature and rainfall trends for the two target areas (Mopani and Namakwa) extending to the year 2010. These analyses confirm and extend several previous published analyses summarised in South Africa‟s 2nd National Communication to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that extended to the year 2000. Based on zonal analysis for the country, both the zone within which Mopani is based and the zone within which Namakwa is based show a steady increase in annual maximum temperatures for the historical period 1960 to 2010. Additionally, the analysis shows a steady increase in the number of extremely warm days, particularly in Mopani. In terms of rainfall, the zonal analysis shows that while there has only been a slight decrease in the annual average rainfall for the Mopani area there has been a steady decrease in the number of rain days. This indicates that while the overall precipitation is more or less the same, rainfall events have become less frequent and more intense, and with longer dry spell duration in-between, exacerbated by higher air temperatures. In the Namakwa area on the other hand, the trend analysis shows no significant trends in either the number of rain days or in annual average rainfall, thus indicating that overall precipitation has remained unchanged, though water availability would have been reduced through increased temperature effects.

According to the local scale analysis for the Mopani District, both annual average maximum and minimum temperatures are projected to increase into the future, thus continuing the warming trend

14 The Long-Term Adaptation Scenarios (LTAS) Flagship Research Programme (2012-2014) is a multi-sectoral research programme, mandated by the South African National Climate Change Response White Paper. The LTAS aims to develop national and sub-national adaptation scenarios for South Africa under plausible climate conditions and development pathways. During its first Phase (completed in June 2013), fundamental climate modelling and related sector-based impacts and adaptation scoping were conducted and synthesised. 15 Department of Environmental Affairs, 2013. Long-Term Adaptation Scenarios (LTAS) Research Programme for South Africa. Climate Trends and Scenarios for South Africa. Pretoria, South Africa. 16 Same as above 17 Same as above

169

that is currently reflected in historical records. Projected increases in minimum and maximum temperatures are in the range of one to two degrees in the near future (2020s), and in the range of two to five degrees in the distant future (2080s), relative to the period 1971-2005. Again, the projections for rainfall are less clear. In the near future (2020s) a weak annual wetting trend, relative to the period 1971-2005, is detected in the projections, particularly so in autumn. In summer and winter, however, projections display weak drying trends. For the 2050s there is no appreciable annual trend for precipitation. In autumn, a moderate wetting trend is projected, whereas in spring, there is a weak drying trend. A weak annual drying trend is indicated for the distant future (2080s), with winter set to dry moderately, with low variability between the datasets.

For the Namakwa District the temperature projections are similar to those of Mopani, and thus also indicate a continuation of the warming trend that is currently reflected in historical records. Projected increases are in the range of one to two degrees in the near future (2020s), and in the range of two to five degrees in the distant future (2080s), relative to the period 1971-2005. In terms of precipitation,the projections are more variable within and between the different datasets. In the near future (2020s) a weak wetting trend is projected on an annual basis, and in autumn in particular. In summer, rainfall is set to decrease moderately. For the 2050s, a very weak wetting annual trend is projected, particularly in autumn. In spring and summer, however, it is set to dry weakly and moderately, respectively, with low variability between the datasets. In the distant future (2080s) there is no appreciable trend in annual precipitation, but in autumn and spring, however, weak wetting is projected, relative to the period 1971-2005.

2.2 Vulnerability Assessments

Vulnerability Assessments were undertaken in the two project target areas, the Mopani and Namakwa Districts, to provide the foundation for selecting priority sectors for climate change adaptation responses with concrete, tangible benefits for the most vulnerable groups. The findings will be used to ensure that the adaptation responses selected for funding through the SGF are based on a sound understanding of the local dynamics and needs, as identified by local stakeholders.

The two Vulnerability Assessments used different methodologies. The Namakwa assessment built on earlier studies focused on identifying priority areas in the Namakwa District for ecosystem-based adaptation to climate change. Consultations for the SGF project were thus able to build on the relationships and capacity developed through previous engagements, and focus discussions on prioritising sectors and interventions that deliver concrete, tangible benefits for vulnerable communities. In Mopani, the engagements were not able to build on a previous base and stakeholders‟ understanding of climate change, and this necessitated the use of different methods to Namakwa. The Mopani approach was specifically developed to engage local stakeholders in the process, and thereby develop local capacity and to collectively identify climate change vulnerabilities. The Mopani assessment focused on two of their five local municipalities, Greater Letaba Local Municipality (Letaba) and Greater Giyani Local Municipality (Giyani), as per the request from the Mopani District to specifically focus the SGF project on these areas, as supported by a national assessment of the South African local municipalities most vulnerable to climate change18.

The stakeholder engagement processes in both target areas highlighted the need for capacity building to develop a thorough understanding of climate change and related adaptation interventions. The design of the project has been cognisant of this need, and capacity building activities have been included to support the development of project ideas and the implementation of project interventions.

Mopani Vulnerability Assessment

The description of the methods and findings below is drawn from the detailed Letaba and Giyani Vulnerability Assessment, which can be accessed on request.

18 Turpie, J and Visser, M, 2012. Chapter 4: The impact of climate change on South Africa’s rural areas. Technical Report: Submission for the 2013/14 Division of Revenue. Published by the Financial and Fiscal Commission. Accessed at http://www.ffc.co.za/index.php/reports/technical-reports [ 20 March 2014].

170

Methods:

The aim of the Letaba and Giyani Vulnerability Assessment was to create an understanding of the local dynamics shaping livelihoods and sectors in Letaba and Giyani, and how climate change might impact these livelihoods and sectors. A participatory approach was followed, through which six workshops were held in April and May 2014 with Letaba and Giyani stakeholders. A seventh workshop was held in June 2014 where the findings of the Vulnerability Assessment were presented to the relevant stakeholders. The approach was informed by earlier consultations with various departmental heads of the Mopani District Municipality who also assisted with stakeholder identification and logistics.

Two different methodological approaches were adopted for these workshops i.e. a livelihoods and a sectoral approach. The livelihoods approach was used to identify the main livelihood activities of the communities within Letaba and Giyani, the challenges facing those activities, the underlying causes and possible solutions to those challenges. The sectoral approach made use of a step-by step method to identify sector-specific stressors (climatic and non-climatic), impacts, sensitivities, adaptive capacity and possible adaptation responses.

Livelihoods approach A workshop in each of the local municipalities, Letaba and Giyania, was held with Community Development Workers from each target area. Each workshop had three principal objectives: to outline the key activities from which people in Letaba and Giyani currently make a living, and rate them in terms of importance (number of people making a living from that activity); to create an understanding of the key stressors and challenges that people currently face in conducting the outlined key activities, the underlying causes of / possible solutions to these key stressors and challenges; and to explore how climate change might impact the key activities through which people make a living.

Sectoral approach Four workshops were held, one with each of the following sets of participants from Letaba and Giyani: i) agricultural extension officers; ii) water supply and waste management practitioners; iii) environmental health practitioners; and iv) municipal officials working in disaster management. Each workshop had three principal objectives: to assess sector vulnerability to current climate and non-climate driven stressors; to assess sector vulnerability to future climate driven stressors, based on an understanding of climate change projections for the Mopani area; and to identify possible climate change adaptation responses, based on the identified current and future vulnerabilities.

Findings:

With historical climate trends and climate change projections indicating increasing average temperatures and increase in the number of extremely warm days, as well as increase in the intensity of heavy rainfall events, the participatory vulnerability assessment highlighted expected challenges with the availability of clean water and with general agricultural production. The potential challenges to the viability of a range of small businesses, from which a large number of people make a living, was also emphasised. This was particularly relevant to the challenges faced by traders (locally known as “hawkers”), whose foods would spoil more rapidly due to higher temperatures. With malaria already featuring in parts of the municipality, further spread of malaria with increasing temperatures, as well as other heat related health impacts and the subsequent impacts on people‟s ability to work, were highlighted. Infrastructure damage from heavy rainfall, is another concern emphasised both in the context of local livelihoods and by municipal officials working in disaster management.

Whilst the need for awareness raising and education was consistently noted, priority risks to be addressed through investments in climate change adaptation interventions through the SGF, as informed by local stakeholders, are seen to be:

Insufficient access to clean water: This is a climate change related concern in Mopani. Increase in average temperatures and increase in extreme temperatures will lead to increase in water demand, with people, plants and animals all requiring more water. Yet a subsequent

171

increase in evaporation due to higher temperatures will decrease water supply. Water supply may be put under further pressure due to an increase in the intensity of heavy rainfall events, as infrastructure is unable to deal with the increase in volumes and turbidity, leading to mixing of water and sewage and foreign materials entering the water supply system.

Reduced food security: Mopani‟s agricultural productivity and quality, in terms of both livestock and crops, is at risk in the face of projected climate change. Increase in average temperatures and the number of days with extreme temperatures, coupled with a shift towards rainfall falling in shorter and more intense events, can lead to heat stress, water scarcity as well as flooding and erosion. This may result in decreased grazing capacity and subsequent livestock mortality, as well as wilting and death of crops. At the same time, high intensity rainfall events can lead to soil erosion, as well as water logging of crops and grazing areas. Increasing temperatures may also lead to the introduction of or increased spread of pests, such as chilo, a moth that causes damage to fruits.

Additional health challenges: Climate change may put people‟s health under stress, due to both direct and indirect impacts of increasing average temperatures and increase in days with extreme temperatures. Direct exposure to heat can lead to high blood pressure and diarrhoea associated with dehydration and fatigue. Increasing temperatures can also lead to the spread of disease, through for example the spread of mosquitos carrying malaria into areas that were previously too cold for transmission.

Economic losses for small businesses & traders: The running of small businesses and traders might become increasingly challenging in the face of climate change, as increasing temperatures impacts products for which there is insufficient cooling storage. Sales of food that has gone off due to lack of access to appropriate cooling storage is already a problem in the present, and increasing temperatures will compound this problem. The health of traders without proper stalls or outlets may also be impacted by the heat.

Damage to infrastructure: Communities in Mopani are set to be put under further stress as infrastructure damage from high intensity rainfall events wash away roads and bridges, cutting communities off from economic hubs and service delivery. There is also the potential for damage to housing and in the worst cases drowning.

Over the course of the stakeholder engagement conducted in developing the Vulnerability Assessment, a number of possible adaptation interventions per target risk were identified by the stakeholders. These are listed below in Box 1. (It is noted, and was noted throughout the process, that these are indicative and that the projects that will be supported through the SGF will be determined through the SGF project application process).

172

Box 1: Adaptation interventions suggested by stakeholders for the Mopani District.

Insufficient access to clean water: Water harvesting, such as water tanks. Water storage facilities, such as reservoirs. Increase water use efficiency through, for example, drip irrigation.

Damage to infrastructure: Construction of climate resilient roads and bridges. Construction of gabions on the side of the road to prevent landslides across the roads. Grow grass to avoid erosion.

Namakwa Vulnerability Assessment

The description of the methods and findings below is drawn from the detailed Namakwa Vulnerability Assessment, which can be accessed on request.

Methods:

As mentioned above, the Vulnerability Assessment for the Namakwa District built on the findings of a 2012 Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment undertaken by CSA, with the support of the Namakwa District Municipality, for the same area19. The focus of the 2012 assessment was to identify priority areas for ecosystem-based adaptation and develop an index of vulnerability for the Namakwa District. The 2012 assessment used socio-economic data from a disaster management survey conducted with all 52 settlements in the District to identify climate disaster prone areas and prioritise activities related to ecosystem-based adaptation.

To broaden the scope of the 2012 assessment beyond ecosystem-based adaptation, CSA began an intensive stakeholder engagement process in 2013. This began with nine workshops with local government – two at the District Municipality level and seven at the Local Municipality level – based

19 Bourne A, Donatti C, Holness S, and Midgley G. 2012. Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for the Namakwa District Municipality. Cape Town: Conservation South Africa.

173

on the Let‟s Respond Toolkit20. These sessions were focused on integrating climate change risks and opportunities into municipal planning through strategic integration of the topic into the Integrated Development Plans for each municipality.

Later in 2013 and in early 2014, in direct response to the requirements of SGF project development phase, CSA and SANBI began to engage directly with affected community groups, local NGOs and CBOs, relevant government departments and research and development institutions active in the Namakwa District. This stakeholder engagement has included two sessions: one in Cape Town at the Annual General Meeting of the Northern Cape Regional Network, a network of NGOs and CBOs working in the Northern Cape including the Namakwa District; and one in Springbok and attended by 61 representatives of 38 locally active institutions. The goal of these engagements was to develop an understanding of climate change impacts at the local level, and priority sectors for and examples of possible community-based adaptation responses. A stakeholder mapping exercise was also undertaken, to identify relevant organisations involved in climate change adaptation and related human development projects.

In addition to the two meetings held in late 2013 and early 2014, many more organisations, institutions, research / implementation partners and community groups were contacted over the telephone and via email. Their inputs are captured in this summary document.

Findings:

Stakeholder input confirmed that drought and extreme heat in the summer months are current climate-related challenges. These challenges, as indicated by the local level climate projections developed for this project, are likely to be exacerbated by climate variability and change. An increase in overall aridity in an area where surface and groundwater supplies are limited and increasingly over- utilised can contribute to unemployment, severe water scarcity and reduced agricultural productivity due to heat and water stress. In addition, climate change induced sea level rise and associated storm surges threaten coastal infrastructure, aquifers and sensitive ecological environments that deliver ecosystem services to sustain rural livelihoods.

At the 2013 meetings with local government stakeholders, some strategic priority areas for climate change responses emerged. The need for environmentally friendly approaches and awareness raising/capacity building on climate change were noted as over-arching concerns. The strategic priorities were seen to be the following sectors: i) water; ii) infrastructure; iii) disaster risk reduction; and iv) livelihoods. These priority sectors have been refined over the course of the subsequent stakeholder engagement sessions, culminating in those identified specifically for the purposes of the SGF project. Whilst the need for awareness raising and education was consistently noted, priority risks to be addressed through investments in climate change adaptation interventions through the SGF, as informed by local stakeholders, are seen to be:

Reduced viability of agricultural livelihoods (including fisheries): Most (95%) land in the Namakwa District is actively utilised for agriculture, mostly small livestock farming (sheep and goats). A large percentage of the population is engaged in farming and directly dependent on related activities for their livelihoods. Agriculture is likely to be affected by drought, heat stress in plants and animals, and a reduction in water availability and water quality for livestock and crops. Increases in evaporation and evapotranspiration will decrease fodder production and grazing production for livestock, potentially resulting in reduced conception, birthing, and weaning rates, poor livestock condition, livestock mortality, and, ultimately, reduced viability of current farming practices. This could result in unemployment and reduced household income, ultimately reducing food security and the sustainability of current livelihood practices.

20 (Department of Environmental Affairs, Department of Cooperative Governance, and the South African Local Government Association). 2012. Let’s Respond: A toolkit to integrating climate change risk and opportunities into municipal planning. Pretoria, South Africa.

174

irrigation infrastructure are vulnerable to flash-flooding after periods of droughts. Coastal settlements and infrastructure (notably fishing and diamond dredging facilities) may be increasingly at risk from storm surge, while inundation of coastal aquifers threatens fresh water supplies.

Increased reliance on Disaster Risk Reduction services: The low density of people and isolation of settlements in the Namakwa District places a strain on municipal disaster risk reduction services. However, an increase in frequency and intensity of climate extremes, particularly drought, will necessitate an increase in the provision of these services, focused on the agriculture sector and human settlements. Community-led disaster risk reduction interventions can safe-guard livelihoods and infrastructure, thus reducing the stress on municipal services and increasing resilience to the impacts of climate variability and change.

Degradation of Ecological Infrastructure: Functioning ecosystems in the Namakwa District currently deliver valuable ecosystem services to rural, vulnerable communities, such as grazing areas for livestock and the provision of clean water for drinking and household use. However, this provision of ecosystem services is threatened by increasing aridity, coupled with over-utilisation of natural resources because of reduced food security and loss of household income. Investing in ecological infrastructure will facilitate community-based management, maintenance and potentially restoration of ecosystems functions and services that support climate resilient livelihoods.

A number of possible adaptation interventions per target area for the Namakwa District were identified by the stakeholders during consultations. These are listed below in Box 2. (As in the case of Mopani, it is noted, and was noted throughout the process, that these are indicative and that the projects that will be supported through the SGF will be determined through the SGF project application process).

Box 2: Adaptation interventions suggested by stakeholders for the Namakwa District.

Increased reliance on Disaster Risk Reduction services: Support to community-based fire management strategies. Small-scale early warning systems, particularly for drought.

175

2.3 Investment Windows

The SGF project will invest in climate change adaptation interventions that fall into prioritised Investment Windows, as shown in Figure 2 and described below. The Investment Windows are informed by local level climate change projections and the Vulnerability Assessments that were undertaken in the two project target areas. All small grants projects will deliver concrete, tangible benefits to local communities, and may deliver cross-cutting benefits in more than one Investment Window.

Figure 2: SGF project Investment Windows.

Climate-Smart Agriculture21 Based on the climate change risks determined by the two Vulnerability Assessments, as outlined above, climate-smart agriculture has been identified as one of the three Investment Windows for the SGF project. Projects that fall within in the climate-smart agriculture Investment Window will address the direct or indirect impacts of climate change on agricultural production, and could target livestock and/or crop production. Climate-smart agriculture projects will focus on responses that feature shifts towards new resilient farming techniques, as well as technological improvements. This could include the use of drought-resilient crops in the face of projected drying, tree planting or the construction of shade structures and more drinking troughs for livestock in the face of increasing temperatures. The implementation of „no-regrets farming techniques‟ (practices that address climate projections yet that have general benefits whatever the extent of future climate change) is preferential. This could for example be the introduction of mulching to retain soil moisture in the face of warming and drying, which at the same time works to improve the general fertility and health of the soil.

Development of climate-smart agriculture projects can entail the incorporation of cross-sectoral aspects such as ecological infrastructure, as healthy, functioning ecosystems that play an important role in preventing erosion, attenuating floods and ensuring that there is sufficient water and grazing. The issue of water-security can also be addressed in the agricultural projects, as ensuring sufficient yet sustainable water availability in the face of increasing temperatures and shifting rainfall patterns is key in order to create resilient farming systems. Climate-smart agriculture projects can also incorporate disaster risk reduction components, through precautionary measures and plans that reduce the impacts of projected shifts in both slow (i.e. drought) and rapid (i.e. thunderstorms) onset extreme events on agriculture.

As for all the small grants projects, climate-smart agriculture projects need to focus on ensuring tangible benefits for the most vulnerable communities.

Climate-Resilient Livelihoods Based on the climate change risks determined by the two Vulnerability Assessments, as outlined above, climate-resilient livelihoods has been identified as one of the three Investment Windows for the SGF project. In this context “livelihoods” is defined as the capabilities, assets and activities required to make a living22. Assets comprise a wide array of aspects that people require for their livelihoods, including: human assets (skills, knowledge, health, ability to work, etc.); natural assets

21 Note that while the FAO definition of Climate-smart agriculture comprises sustainably increasing agricultural productivity and incomes, adaptation to climate change and climate change mitigation, small grants projects that fall within this Investment Window will focus on climate change adaptation. If small grants projects also speak to sustainability and mitigation these will be co-benefits, yet not prerequisites. 22 Chambers, R. and Conway, G.R. (1992) „Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the 21st Century‟, Discussion Paper 296. Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies.

176

(land, water, wildlife, etc.); financial assets (financial resources that people use, i.e. savings, credit, pensions); physical assets (transport, energy, etc.); and social assets (networks, groups, access to institutions).

Climate-resilient livelihoods projects will work to increase the resilience of income generating activities and associated assets in the face of a changing climate. This could include aspects that affect people directly, such as heat stress experienced by traders without access to proper stalls, or aspects that affect an activity, for example, increasing water requirements for brick making as increasing temperatures leading to drying of the mud used for brick making.

The climate-resilient livelihoods Investment Window provides an opportunity to reflect on climate change impacts on locally specific livelihoods, and aims to foster innovative approaches for responding to these. Importantly, projects must be able to show how the interventions directly address aspects of an income generating activity or associated livelihoods asset that is set to be impacted by projected climate change.

As for all the small grants projects, climate-resilient livelihoods projects need to benefit a wider group of people. Therefore the number of businesses included in the scope of a project will depend on the number of people employed in each of the businesses.

Climate-Proof Settlements Based on the climate change risks that came out of the two Vulnerability Assessments, as outlined above, climate-proof settlements has been identified as one of the three Investment Windows for the SGF project. This Investment Window incorporates projects that address the climate change vulnerability of settlements, the people living in those settlements and the infrastructure on which they depend. This could include ensuring that infrastructure can deliver access to sufficient clean drinking water in the face of increased risk of storm surge and subsequent inundation of coastal aquifers. It could also including ensuring that community members are able to commute to school, to work or to the economic hub as normal if projections indicate an increase in the intensity of heavy rainfall events with which local infrastructure cannot cope.

Development of climate-proof settlements also addresses the need for disaster risk reduction, as climate change in some areas might mean an increase in the frequency and intensity of climate extremes. Disaster risk reduction projects, preferably community-led, that can safe-guard lives, livelihoods and infrastructure, will thus be included. Depending on the climate change projections for the area, such projects could prepare for extremes ranging from droughts to thunderstorms. Ecological infrastructure can in some cases play a role in buffering extremes, and as such be incorporated as part of climate-proof settlement projects. Such interventions need to be linked to projected climate change related impacts on settlements being reduced or prevented as a result of healthy and functioning ecosystems. This could include the restoration or rehabilitation of a wetland that can be shown to provide flood attenuation for a community at risk from flooding due to an increase in the intensity of heavy rainfall events.

177

Box 3: Aspects to note for project development.

Capacity development & awareness It should be noted that the SGF will not fund projects that are only focused on awareness and education, only planning, or only research without feeding into an implementation activity, as set out in the criteria in section 3 below.

Locally appropriate and locally driven responses It should also be noted that it will be important for adaptation responses to be grounded in the local context. Responses should ideally be driven by the beneficiaries themselves, and in the least have the full support of the beneficiaries. It is therefore important to consider the full scope of the local context. For example, considering whether a drought resistant crop is likely to be accepted and used by the local community, or whether the improved housing structures that are developed are aligned with local cultural traditions.

Avoiding maladaptation Maladaptation refers to when an adaptation action in the end becomes more harmful than helpful. In developing adaptation responses it is important to think of possible negative spin-off effects resulting from the actions, as well as whether the action is robust in the context of the uncertainties related to climate change projections.

3. SELECTION CRITERIA: SMALL GRANT RECIPIENTS AND ADAPTATION PROJECTS

The SGF project will support projects that increase the resilience of vulnerable groups and long-term sustainable livelihoods, with an emphasis on projects that generate tangible adaptation responses in rural areas. Prospective grantees must be able to show that their projects respond to climate risks and in this regard, the integration of scientific and local knowledge is an area of particular interest. Reduced vulnerability of local communities to existing and anticipated impacts of climate change may be achieved through strengthened livelihood strategies, increased adaptive capacity, and building ecosystem resilience, amongst other approaches. Listed below are criteria for the selection of small grant recipients and for the assessment of the climate change adaptation projects they will submit for funding:

Criteria for small grant recipients: Grant recipients must be South African institutions with proven relevant implementation experience. Preference will be given to grant recipients that are legal entities and have the capacity to receive, manage and audit project funds. Preference will be given to projects led by civil society organisations and civil society organisations must be represented on project management structures. Organisations will need to show how women are included in their project management structures. Grant recipients must have a sound track record of good governance, delivery of grant commitments and financial management. Preference will be given to grant recipients with a clean audit record. Grant recipients must have previous positive experience receiving a combination of funds in the order of USD 25,000 (R 250,000) per year over a period of at least two years. Grant recipients are encouraged to develop implementation partnerships that augment or share their current capacity. Preference will be given to grant recipients that have established long-standing relationships with communities in the Namakwa or Mopani District Municipality. Grant recipients must have proof of land or asset ownership, and/or land tenure or permission to carry out proposed activity, as relevant. Grant recipients must have a clear mandate from project beneficiaries to work in the project target areas on the identified project activities.

178

Grant recipients must demonstrate willingness to participate in learning and knowledge development and dissemination processes. Grant recipients must not be receiving funds from other sources for the proposed project activities.

Criteria for project selection: The SGF project is looking to fund small grant projects that address a clear climate change related threat and have a clear and demonstrable link to tangible, measurable, visible adaptation for people. Projects must clearly demonstrate that they respond to a particular climate change risk that is relevant for the project area, as identified in the project Investment Strategy. Projects must support adaptive interventions that clearly respond to current or anticipated local vulnerabilities that deliver concrete, tangible and measurable climate change adaptation benefits. Projects must support concrete actions and deliver tangible results that increase resilience to climate variability and change. Projects must align with the Community Adaptation SGF Investment Windows, as described above in Section 2.3. Projects must be located within the broader development context (provide economic, social, and/or environmental co-benefits) of the area. Projects must be supported by anticipated beneficiaries and local stakeholders. Where relevant, projects are required to demonstrate sustainable land tenure arrangements. Projects must support vulnerable local communities and especially women. Projects will beneficiate groups rather than single individuals – i.e. at least 50 direct beneficiaries per project Projects must include learning outcomes and inform ways to scale up and replicate approaches in other communities. Projects must clearly demonstrate how success will be measured and must have clear indicators. Projects must be replicable and/or scalable and sustainable after the SGF funding ends. Projects must be cost-effective. Projects must be located in rural/ semi-rural areas. Projects must be implemented in the Namakwa District Municipality, or Greater Giyani or Greater Letaba in the Mopani District Municipality.

Note: The SGF will not fund: Projects that do not align with all of the above criteria. Projects that do not result in tangible, measurable adaptation benefits for people – this includes any project that is only awareness and education, only planning, or only research without feeding into an implemented activity. Projects that do not show additionality (see Box 4).

179

Box 4: Additionality: Why development projects are not always adaptation projects.

There is a global recognition that poverty alleviation and development issues of education, health, access to water, gender equity, and economic diversification are challenges for all. Governments, including South Africa, have signed commitments to international agreements to address these poverty and development issues and have set national targets to deliver tangible change in the lives of people. South Africa in particular has a robust political commitment and financial resources dedicated to provide its citizens with access to water, proper sanitation, good infrastructure, and health and education services. In the context of international agreements, and funding sources for this project, these targets are the responsibility of the national government and they will not fund projects that would be seen to be simply filling a delay or failure in delivery of a basic service.

As such, projects submitted for consideration by the SGF MUST demonstrate that they are directly responding to a new risk that has emerged as a result of a globally changing climate - this is known globally as "additionality". Additionality is showing that the activity is a new input to "business as usual". In the case of agriculture for example, there are the business as usual outcomes associated with agricultural development – e.g. production increases, improved agricultural markets, enhanced food security, empowered farmer organisations, etc. There are policies and industry bodies seeking to do these activities. Then, there are areas where agricultural productivity or food security is anticipated to be directly impacted by climate change and where inputs are required to address this. For example, a drip irrigation scheme to conserve water put in an area where climate vulnerability models are showing a low risk of change in rainfall or even an increase in rainfall and water availability, then this is not "additional". However, if a drip irrigation technique is being put in place because climate change is going to impact water security and the area is already water scarce, then this drip irrigation system is additional and could be potentially funded by the SGF.

Additionality is a key word applied to climate change adaptation interventions and the indicators for your projects will need to show how this climate finance has improved adaptive capacity.

4. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

National Implementing Entity SANBI will be the National Implementing Entity (NIE) for this project. SANBI will support project implementation by assisting in monitoring project budgets and expenditures and supporting the recruitment and contracting of project personnel and consultant services, including subcontracting. SANBI will also monitor project implementation and the achievement of the project outcomes/outputs and ensure the efficient use of donor funds.

Executing Entity The project will be administered through SSN, the project‟s Executing Entity (EE). SSN was identified following a thorough review of potentially suitable existing entities in South Africa and a subsequent process that called for expressions of interest.

SSN will be responsible for receiving and disbursing funds, for contracting the project‟s FAs, for contracting arrangements with all small grant recipients and for leading the Learning Component of the project, with support from the FAs and other service providers. They will also be responsible for overall project monitoring, evaluation and reporting and will work directly with the NIE to ensure that AF reporting requirements are met.

180

SSN (the Executing Entity) will appoint and designate a project manager for the duration of the project. The project manager‟s primary responsibility will be to ensure that the project produces the results specified in the project document to the required standard of quality and within the specified constraints of time and cost.

Facilitating Agencies The project‟s Facilitating Agencies (FAs) will provide site based support in each of the project target areas. They will appoint Project Coordination Staff including a local coordinator in each region. These local coordinators will support small grant recipients to execute the project activities, including project identification, design and implementation, day-to-day operations of the project, and operational and financial management and reporting.

CSA will act as FA for Namakwa. They have a long history working in this area, and have an excellent track record in community engagement and grant making, including project identification, development, training and management support. The FA for Mopani will be identified through a transparent procurement process that will commence once it is certain that the project will proceed.

5. OVERSIGHT, GOVERNANCE AND COORDINATION

The proposed governance and implementation arrangements for the project are illustrated in Figure 3 and the envisaged roles and responsibilities that will be assigned to each of these structures is described below.

Project Management Team The day to day management of the project will be supported by a Project Management Team that will comprise the EE (SSN) and the two FAs. As and when required, the Project Management Team may co-opt others such as the NIE or other members of the NIE Steering Committee to join the Project Management Team. Project Management Team meetings will be coordinated by the SSN SGF Project Manager, and will happen at least monthly.

Project Steering Committee A Project Steering Committee will be set up to provide project oversight and to consider recommendations regarding the approval of the small grants that are the subject of this project.

The Project Steering Committee will comprise two members of the NIE Steering Committee, one of which will be the Department of Environment Affairs, the NIE and technical climate change adaptation experts who are drawn from National Academic Institutions and target area sector departments. The EE will act as Secretariat for this committee, and both the EE and the FAs will take guidance from the Project Steering Committee processes. The Project Steering Committee will meet quarterly.

Local Reference Groups Local reference groups will be set up at project inception. They will support the FAs to ensure that projects are locally contextualised, consider local and indigenous knowledge, integrated and coordinated into ongoing local programmes of work, technically robust and sustainable. In some cases they may also be able to attest to the credibility of the prospective small grant recipients.

It is envisaged that members of these groups will include amongst others the District Municipality, relevant provincial and national sector departments, and experts from tertiary institutions. Prospective small grant recipients will not be able to be members of these groups.

These local reference groups will play an important role in concept screening during the first stage of the project development process, in detailed application development and in project implementation, learning, monitoring and reporting processes.

181

Figure 3: Institutional Arrangements for the SGF project. The black arrows indicate the relationships between the different project partners and committees. The purple arrows indicate the flow of funds. Abbreviations: Executing Entity (EE); SouthSouthNorth (SSN); Facilitating Agency (FA); and Conservation South Africa (CSA).

6. PROJECT IDENTIFICATION, APPROVAL AND CONTRACTING PROCESSES

Five stages are envisaged and these are described below. It is acknowledged that there is a great need to develop local capacity in order to empower local stakeholders who are anticipated grant recipients to apply for project support. In support of this, capacity building and learning opportunities will be created throughout the lifetime of the project. These will be based on the outcomes of training of grants recipients and capacity building needs analysis that will be conducted by the FAs, with support of the EE, on an ongoing basis.

Figure 4: The five “Taking Adaptation to the Ground” project stages.

Stage 1: From an idea to a concept proposal

In this first stage, prospective small grant recipients will be required to submit short project concepts to the FAs.

In support of this stage, the FAs will issue a call for concept proposals. This call will use appropriate local communication channels such as local radio stations and community newspapers. The call will be supported by briefing sessions that will be convened in each of the project target areas. These

182

sessions will provide an opportunity for potential small grant recipients to meet the FAs, learn more about the granting opportunity and to obtain some initial input around their project ideas.

Project concepts will be screened by the FAs with the support of Local Reference Groups, against a basic set of criteria that will be made known to applicants before they apply. These criteria are set out in Section 3 of this proposal. The recommendations of this screening process will be submitted to the EE, who will table them at a Project Steering Committee meeting for a final decision. Projects that meet the specified criteria and are approved by the Project Steering Committee will be entered into Stage Two.

Project development assistance will be offered to project proponents whose concepts are believed to have merit, but do not quite meet the SGF criteria. Such proponents will be afforded another opportunity to submit their revised concepts, possibly at the time of the next call for concept proposals.

Detailed steps for Stage 1: Issue call for proposals (EE, FAs) Convene briefing sessions (FA) Submit project concepts (Prospective small grant recipients) Review and Screen Concepts (FAs, Local Reference Groups) Make recommendations regarding next steps (FAs) Table recommendations at Project Steering Committee meeting (EE) Notify FAs of outcomes (EE) Notify prospective small grant recipients of outcomes (FAs) (concept approved; concept requires additional work; concept not approved)

Stage 2: From an approved concept to a detailed proposal

For all approved concepts, the FAs will support prospective small grant recipients to further develop and refine the project concepts into application that meet the criteria and requirements of the SGF. As part of this process, the FAs will invite input from local experts who will work alongside prospective small grant recipients to refine their proposals. This will include the incorporation of relevant material such as the Vulnerability Assessments for each area and a review of the environmental and social safeguards to make sure that they align with Adaptation Fund checklist.

Prospective small grant recipients will submit fully developed applications to the EE via the FAs with a letter of endorsement from the FAs. The EE will note the submission of the documentation, review it for completeness, and acknowledge receipt.

Applications will then be reviewed by three external reviewers, one of which will be the EE. The other two will be selected on the basis of their technical expertise in the project content area. Reviewers will evaluate applications against the agreed project and institutional criteria. The EE will then compile the reviewers‟ comments into an integrated review, and make recommendations to the Project Steering Committee as to whether to approve, not to approve or call for additional work on the application. All reviews – possibly with the reviewer names removed – will be made available to proponents.

The Project Steering Committee will then decide whether to approve the application, reject the application, or refer it back to the prospective small grant recipients for further modifications. The record of the Project Steering Committee meeting will capture the Project Steering Committee‟s recommendations and the reasoning behind the decision. In the cases of conditional approval, the meeting record would detail the conditions that need to be met for approval.

The EE will notify prospective small grant recipients and the FAs of the recommendations of the Project Steering Committee. Applications that are approved will enter the contracting stage. Projects

183

that are referred back to proponents for further modification will have an opportunity to resubmit during the next call for proposals.

Detailed steps for Stage 2: Convene application development sessions with prospective small grant recipients (FAs, experts) Work with prospective small grant recipients to improve application (FAs, experts) Complete applications (Prospective small grant recipients) Submit completed applications to FAs to check for completeness (Prospective small grant recipients) Submit to the EE with endorsement (FAs) Acknowledge receipt (EE) Review completed proposals – technical and due diligence (Experts, EE) Table recommendations at Project Steering Committee meeting (EE) Notify FAs of outcomes (EE) Notify prospective Small grant recipients of outcomes (FAs) (application approved; application requires additional work; application not approved)

Stage 3: Contracting

Once approved by the Project Steering Committee, the EE will prepare and enter into contracts with small grant recipients.

The legal agreements between the EE and the prospective small grant recipients will be negotiated and finalized based on the nature of the activity and of the anticipated funding flows. This process will include internal processing as well as compliance and due diligence screening. The agreements will contain all relevant details regarding the terms and conditions of the Fund‟s financing and may include terms and conditions applicable to the relationship between the EE, FAs and small grant recipients.

Contracts will specify the annual project work plan and associated budgets, deliverables and disbursement schedules. They will also specify monitoring, evaluation and reporting requirements. Baselines will need to be established within the first 3 months of project inception. When required, the FAs will assist with this process.

This stage will conclude with the signing of legal agreements between the EE and the new small grant recipient and the payment of the first instalment into the small grant recipient‟s bank account.

Detailed steps for Stage 3: Preparation of draft terms and conditions (EE) Negotiation and finalization of draft legal documents (EE, FAs, small grant recipient) Signature of legal documents Award grant

Stage 4: Implementation, monitoring and reporting Small grant recipients will be expected to implement their projects according to the schedules and deliverables that are set out in their contracts. All small grant recipients will be expected to participate in and contribute to the project‟s knowledge management and capacity building processes.

The FAs will support small grant recipients in this process by visiting each project at least once each quarter, and supporting reporting and monitoring processes. The FAs will be responsible for advising the EE on small grant recipient project progress and making recommendations to the EE for the disbursement of funds. The EE will undertake the necessary internal procedures to validate and complete the contracted payments. Any requests to deviate from the disbursement schedule agreed in small grant recipient contracts will need to be approved by the SGF Project Steering Committee and provided in writing.

In addition to the quarterly site visits, small grant recipients will be engaged in the SGF Project mid- term and terminal evaluations conducted by external reviewers. The FAs will support processes for small grant recipients to be meaningfully engaged by the external monitoring and evaluation consultants during these evaluations.

184

Throughout the SGF project, opportunities will be created from small grant recipients to meet and share lessons and experiences with each other, and with other local and national stakeholders. Should the opportunity arise, small grant recipients may also be requested to share their experience with the international community. In support of this, annual small grant recipients meetings will be organised in each focal area. At least two of these will bring small grant recipients from the two areas together.

Detailed steps for Stage 4: Project becomes effective Transfer of first installment to small grant recipient according to contract disbursement schedule (EE Quarterly reporting (Small grant recipient) Quarterly site visits to each project by FAs (FAs) Annual visits to project areas by EE (EE) Ongoing participation in knowledge and leaning activities (Small grant recipient) Mid-term review – led by external independent consultants, includes local ref groups and Project Steering Committee (EE, FAs, small grant recipients) Terminal review – led by external independent consultants, includes local ref groups and Project Steering Committee (EE, FAs, small grant recipients)

Stage 5: Closure At project closure, all small grant recipients will be expected to submit final financial and performance reports which will need to include a project sustainability plan.

185

Annex VI: Community Adaptation Small Grants Facility Project Review, Oversight and Environmental and Social Risk Management Plan

1. The Small Grant Making Process

The process to support prospective small grant recipients to identify project concepts, and to develop these ideas into applications that could be approved and ultimately contracted by the Community Adaptation SGF, has five stages (see Figure 1). These are summarized in Table 1 and described below. The roles and responsibilities that have been assigned to the various project partners throughout the small grant making process are set out in the Institutional Arrangements section below. Draft project concept and detailed project proposal application forms have been developed by the EE, and will be finalized in a consultative process leading up to the Inception Workshop.

It is acknowledged that there is a great need to develop local capacity in order to empower local community members and stakeholders who are anticipated small grant recipients to apply for Community Adaptation SGF assistance. In support of this, capacity building and learning opportunities will be created throughout the lifetime of the project. These will be informed by the outcomes of capacity building needs analyses that will be conducted by the Facilitating Agencies, with the support of the EE, on an on-going basis.

Figure 1: The five Community Adaptation SGF project stages, illustrating where small grant projects will be screened for potential social and environmental risks in accordance with the Adaptation Fund Environmental and Social Policy (ESP).

186

Table 1: Indicative Steps Associated with the five stages of the Community Adaptation SGF Small Grant Making Process. The responsible agent(s) is indicated in brackets after each indicative step.

Stage Indicative Steps Stage 1: From an idea Issue call for project concepts (EE, Facilitating Agencies) to a project concept Convene briefing sessions (Facilitating Agencies) Submit project concepts (prospective small grant recipients) Review and screen project concepts against three sets of criteria (Facilitating Agencies, Local Reference Groups) Submit to the EE (Facilitating Agencies) Make recommendations regarding next stages (Facilitating Agencies) Table recommendations at Project Steering Committee (PSC) meeting (EE) Notify Facilitating Agencies of outcomes (EE) Notify prospective small grant recipients of outcomes (Facilitating Agencies) (project concept approved; project concept requires additional work; project concept not approved) Stage 2: From an Convene detailed project proposal development sessions with prospective small approved project grant recipients (Facilitating Agencies, Experts) concept to a detailed Work with prospective small grant recipients to improve detailed project proposal project proposal (Facilitating Agencies, Experts) Complete detailed project proposal (Prospective Small Grant Recipients) Submit completed detailed project proposals to Facilitating Agencies to check for completeness (Prospective small grant recipients) Submit to the EE with endorsement letters (Facilitating Agencies on behalf of Local Reference Groups) Acknowledge receipt (EE) Review completed detailed project proposals – technical and due diligence (Experts, EE) Screen detailed project proposal against AF ESP (Facilitating Agency, EE, NIE) Table recommendations at PSC meeting (EE) Notify Facilitating Agencies of outcomes (EE) Notify prospective small grant recipients of outcomes (Facilitating Agencies) (detailed project proposal approved; detailed project proposal requires additional work; detailed project proposal not approved Stage 3: Contracting Preparation of draft terms and conditions (EE) Negotiation and finalization of draft legal documents (EE, Facilitating Agencies, small grant recipient) Signature of legal documents Award small grant Stage 4: Small grant project becomes effective Implementation, Transfer of first installment to small grant recipient according to contract Monitoring and disbursement schedule (EE) Reporting Quarterly reporting (Small grant recipient) Quarterly site visits to each project by Facilitating Agencies (Facilitating Agencies) Quarterly feedback to EE and PSC (Facilitating Agencies) Annual visits to small grant project areas by EE Periodic training and capacity building events (Facilitating Agencies, consultants) Ongoing participation in knowledge and leaning activities (Small grant recipient) Participation in Mid-term review – led by external independent consultants, includes Local Reference Groups and PSC (EE, Facilitating Agencies, small grant recipients) Participation in Terminal review – led by external independent consultants, includes Local Reference Groups and PSC (EE, Facilitating Agencies, small grant recipients) Stage 5: Closure Submit final financial and performance reports Submit small grant project sustainability plan Participation in close out event

187

Project concepts will be screened by the Facilitating Agencies, with the support of Local Reference Groups, against the three sets of review criteria, as follows: screening of the small grant recipients against a set of predetermined criteria; screening of the small grant projects, to ensure they align with the objectives of the Community Adaptation SGF; and screening of the small grant projects against the criteria of the AF ESP to ensure that there are no significant project risks, or that any minor risks that can be mitigated.

188

The Facilitation Agency will also undertake a comprehensive screening of the detailed project proposals against the AF ESP for a second time, to ensure that no additional issues that could pose risks have emerged during the detailed design process. If any such minor risks have emerged, the potential small grant recipients will need to include a mitigation plan in the detailed project proposals. The EE will review this assessment, and the NIE will provide oversight over this aspect of the process to ensure overall compliance with the AF ESP.

Stage 3: Contracting Once approved by the PSC, the EE will prepare and enter into contracts with small grant recipients.

23 This review process is based on a previous review process that was successfully implemented for the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund‟s investment in the Cape Floristic Region and Succulent Karoo hotspots between 2004 and 2009.

189

This stage will conclude with the signing of legal agreements between the EE and the small grant recipient and the payment of the first installment into the small grant recipient‟s bank account.

Stage 5: Closure At project closure, all small grant recipients will be expected to submit final financial and performance reports which will need to include a project sustainability plan.

As part of the Terminal review, a close out event will also be convened for the project team and small grant recipients to reflect on the outcomes of the Community Adaptation SGF.

2. Project Screening and Review

The project development and review mechanisms of the Community Adaptation SGF will be guided by criteria that ensure that small grant projects clearly respond to experienced or anticipated climate induced stresses, and meet the objectives of the Community Adaptation SGF, the NIE and the Adaptation Fund (AF). As part of this, the screening processes will also ensure that all small grant projects meet the requirements for a project with no significant risks in terms of the AF ESP, or a project with minor risks that can be mitigated.

190

The Screening Process will have three steps, as follows: screening of the small grant recipients against a set of predetermined criteria; screening of the small grant projects, to ensure they align with the objectives of the Community Adaptation SGF; and screening of the small grant projects against the criteria of the AF ESP to ensure that they are no significant project risks, or that any minor risks that can be mitigated.

Small grant projects that do not meet the requirement for a project with no significant risks in terms of the AF ESP, or a project with minor risks that can be mitigated, will be excluded.

The criteria were designed to ensure consistency with the aspirations of project target communities, alignment with the NIE Investment Framework and compliance with the standards and criteria of the AF, including the Environmental and Social Policy. They were designed in consultation with project stakeholders as part of the Community Adaptation SGF detailed design phase.

2.1 Criteria for Small Grant Recipients

Small grant recipients must be South African institutions with proven relevant implementation experience. Preference will be given to small grant recipients that are legal entities and have the capacity to receive, manage and audit project funds. Preference will be given to small grant projects led by civil society organisations, and civil society organisations must be represented on management structures of all small grant projects. Organisations will need to show how women are included in their project management structures. Small grant recipients must have a sound track record of good governance, delivery of grant commitments and financial management. Preference will be given to grant recipients with a clean audit record. Small grant recipients must have previous positive experience receiving a combination of funds in the order of USD 25,000 (R 250,000) per year over a period of at least two years. Small grant recipients are encouraged to develop implementation partnerships that augment or share their current capacity. Preference will be given to small grant recipients that have established long-standing relationships with communities in the Namakwa or Mopani District Municipality.

191

Small grant recipients must have proof of land or asset ownership, and/or land tenure or permission to carry out proposed activity, as relevant. Small grant recipients must have a clear mandate from project community beneficiaries to work in the project target areas on the identified project activities. Small grant recipients must demonstrate willingness to participate in learning and knowledge development and dissemination processes. Small grant recipients must not be receiving funds from other sources for the proposed small grant project activities. Small grant recipients may only receive one small grant from the Community Adaptation SGF.

2.2 Criteria for Small Grant Projects

The Community Adaptation SGF will fund small grant projects that address a clear climate change related threat and have a clear and demonstrable link to tangible, measurable and visible adaptation benefits for vulnerable communities. Small grant projects must clearly demonstrate that they respond to a particular climate change risk that is relevant for the project area, as identified in the project VAs (see Annex II). Small grant projects must support adaptive interventions that clearly respond to current or anticipated local vulnerabilities that deliver concrete, tangible and measurable climate change adaptation benefits. Small grant projects must support concrete actions and deliver tangible results that increase resilience to climate variability and change. Small grant projects must be able to show no significant risks in terms of the AF ESP, or minor risks that can be mitigated. Small grant projects must align with the Community Adaptation SGF Investment Windows, as described above in Box 3. Small grant projects must be located within the broader development context (provide economic, social, and/or environmental co-benefits) of the area. Small grant projects must be supported by anticipated beneficiaries and local community stakeholders. Where relevant, small grant projects are required to demonstrate sustainable land tenure arrangements. Small grant projects must support vulnerable, local communities and especially women. Small grant projects will beneficiate community groups rather than single individuals i.e. at least 50 direct community beneficiaries per project. Small grant projects must include learning outcomes and inform ways to scale up and replicate approaches in other communities. Small grant projects must clearly demonstrate how success will be measured and must have clear indicators. Small grant projects must be replicable and/or scalable. Small grant projects must be sustainable after the Community Adaptation SGF funding ends. Small grant projects must be cost-effective. Small grant projects must be located in rural/semi-rural areas. Small grant projects must be implemented in the Namakwa District Municipality, or Greater Giyani or Greater Letaba in the Mopani District Municipality.

2.3 Environmental and Social Risk Screening

All small grant projects will be screened against the AF ESP, and potential small grant recipients will be required to complete Table 2. Any small grant project that does not meet the requirements for a project with no significant risks in terms of the AF ESP, or minor risks that can be mitigated, will be excluded.

192

Table 2: Checklist of environmental and social principles.

Law Access and Equity Marginalised and

Vulnerable Groups Human Rights Gender Equity and Women’s Empowerment Core Labour Rights Indigenous Peoples Involuntary

Resettlement Protection of Natural

Habitats Conservation of

Biological Diversity Climate Change Pollution Prevention and Resource Efficiency Public Health Physical and Cultural

Heritage Lands and Soil

Conservation

3. Institutional Arrangements

193

suitable existing entities in South Africa and a subsequent process that called for expressions of interest. See Box 7 for further details.

Facilitating Agencies The project‟s Facilitating Agencies will provide site-based support in each of the project target areas. They will appoint Project Coordination Staff including a local coordinator in each region. These local coordinators will support small grant recipients to execute the project activities, including project identification, design and implementation, day-to-day operations of the project, and operational and financial management and reporting.

Oversight, Governance and Coordination The proposed governance and implementation arrangements for the project are illustrated in Figure 2 and the envisaged roles and responsibilities that will be assigned to each of these structures is described below.

Strategic and operational oversight, and in particular oversight over compliance with the AF ESP, will be ensured by the NIE.

The Steering Committee has the following functions: Providing overall project governance

194

Supporting SANBI to ensure overall compliance with the spirit, policies and procedures of the Adaptation Fund. Monitoring AF ESP risks, and oversight of corrective action that may need to be taken. Supporting the NIE to build a coordinated adaptation response that delivers tangible outcomes. Guiding the development of and endorse the NIE investment strategy, ensuring optimal linkages with the policy environment and that projects are driven by country needs Setting up and oversee the project review process, including guiding the development of terms of reference for reviewers, setting up the review panel, and considering the recommendations of reviewers. Endorsing projects for submission to the Adaptation Fund, ensuring appropriate linkages with Adaptation Fund criteria and facilitating appropriate consultation with and, where necessary, endorsement from relevant spheres of government. From time to time this may involve promoting agreement on the roles of relevant institutions in implementing AF projects and facilitate the resolution of disputes among project partners. Promoting cooperation between relevant South African Institutions and funding agencies to enhance synergy and avoid duplication between adaptation efforts, to leverage additional resources where appropriate, and to support information management and flows between and feedback between the NIE and the NCCC and IGCCC and contribute towards climate finance and climate change adaptation policy development.

The PSC will comprise: the National Department of Environmental Affairs; the Adaptation Network, which is a network whose membership includes a broad spectrum of NGOs, academia, government and business organisations with a shared interest in adaptation strategies for the negative impacts of climate change. The Adaptation Network represents Civil Society on the NIE Steering Committee and is well placed to do the same on the Community Adaptation SGF PSC; Representatives of the Mopani and Namakwa District Municipalities; the NIE; and technical climate change adaptation experts who are drawn from National Academic Institutions and target area government departments.

The EE will convene and act as Secretariat for this committee, and both the EE and the Facilitating Agencies will take guidance from the PSC processes. The PSC will meet quarterly.

195

Figure 2: Institutional Arrangements for the Community Adaptation SGF project. The black arrows indicate the relationships between the different project partners and committees. The purple arrows indicate the flow of funds. Abbreviations: Executing Entity (EE); SouthSouthNorth (SSN) Trust; Facilitating Agency (FA); and Conservation South Africa (CSA).

196

Annex VII: Other supporting documents

Annex VII.1 Technical Note

TECHNICAL NOTE: DRAFT PROPOSAL FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF THE EXECUTING ENTITY FOR THE SMALL GRANT FACILITY (SGF)

PURPOSE To inform the process for the identification of the Executing Entity of the Small Grants Facility developed under the National Implementing Entity for the Adaptation Fund.

INTRODUCTION The need for a SGF for Climate Change Adaptation was identified during the NIE‟s early engagement processes with stakeholders. During these engagements, stakeholders commented that, in order for vulnerable groups to be empowered to take local action, they needed to have direct access to Climate Change Adaptation resources, The SGF concept was presented to the Adaptation Board in July 2013. It was received with much enthusiasm. The Board is expecting SANBI to submit a fully developed proposal by July 2014 that, among other things, elucidates how the SGF will function. SANBI will need to demonstrate that the mechanism that supports the SGF meets the following objectives: Cost effective – Need to demonstrate that the overall return on investment in Climate Change Adaptation at least matches that of other financing instruments Transparent and well governed – Processes for the identification, review and approval of projects need to be transparent and fair Technically sound – The SGF must be able to mobilise capacity and project development support for the communities that are envisaged to be beneficiaries of the SGF Accountable - Sound financial, monitoring, evaluation, reporting and auditing capabilities Sustainable – The SGF must be set up in such a way that it is possible to recapitalise the fund with additional resources once the AF investment is exhausted

In order to support the above, and recognising that it would be difficult to identify an Executing Entity with both financial management and project development capabilities and that it may in fact be desirable to separate these in order to support good governance, a governance and oversight process was conceptualised. This is presented in Figure 1 below. The process and supporting proposal to the Adaptation Fund Board proposed that Gender cc and CSA would function as facilitating agencies for the project, bringing much needed project development and technical support into the local beneficiary communities. It was noted that the institution that would function as the Executing agency would still be determined.

197

Figure 1: Proposed Governance and Oversight processes for the SGF

198

BACKGROUND As discussed, the work under the National Implementing Entity has culminated in the approval of the Small Grants Facility by the Adaptation Fund Board. The principles of direct access and enhanced direct access which aims to ensure linkages between the available funding and potential beneficiaries of the fund are entrenched in the SGF concept. This would also generate very clear and tangible outcomes with respect to climate adaptation on the ground and help to inform key lessons and strategies going forward.

To facilitate the implementation of the SGF special financing mechanism, it is vitally important that a capable Executing Entity (ies) is identified and appointed as the primary executing entity for the mechanism. In this regard, it is recognised that the SGF could: Piggyback on the administration, governance and institutional structures of one of these entities; OR Based on the review and evaluation of the different financing mechanisms, a new governance and institutional structure could be proposed for the SGF

Based on discussions between the National Treasury and the NIE team, several existing small grant and climate adaptation related mechanisms were identified for further consideration by the NIE Steering Committee. These are: National LandCare Programme: Small Community Grants Component Expanded Public Works Programme: Environmental and Culture Sector Global Environment Facility: Small Grants Programme (SGP) Drylands Fund Green Fund NGO Small Grant Facilities.

It is also evident that climate finance efforts in South Africa are currently quite fragmented and the potential for double dipping is very high. Therefore, there is a need for developing a national vision or strategic context for micro finance focusing on the SGF to support small scale adaptation efforts and to consider the role of the SGF in addressing some of the financial gaps associated with adaptation.

Accordingly, this note seeks to review the current financing mechanisms based on the scope, objectives, governance structure and institutional arrangements of the respective instruments. This assessment will form the basis for recommendations to inform the appointment of the executing entity for the SGF.

199

OVERVIEW OF CURRENT DEDICATED CLIMATE ADAPTATION RELATED FINANCING INSTRUMENTS

Table 1 below provides a preliminary discussion and comparison of the different environmental financing instruments that are connected to DEA, drawing on desktop research and information that was readily available. Information about NGO-managed small grant facilities was not accessed at this time.

Table 1: Summary of Current Dedicated Climate Adaptation Related Financing Instruments National Land Care Programme: Expanded Public Work Global Environmental Facility: Drylands Fund Green Fund Small Community Grants Programme Small Grants Programme Objective To develop and implement integrated The EPWP Environmental and Culture Programme aims to support the overall Aims to scale up efforts to address Provide an evidence base for the approaches to natural resource Sector Programme aims to: objectives and focal areas of the GEF. environmental degradation, climate transition to a low carbon, green management in South Africa that are Integrate sustainable rural change and rural poverty in South economy. efficient, sustainable, equitable and development and urban renewal Grants are provided by the GEF to Africa. Support pro-poor initiatives that consistent with the principles of Crate land-based livelihoods developing countries for projects related restore and sustain healthy ecologically sustainable development. Promote community based to biodiversity, climate change, ecosystems, building partnerships Facilitate the implementation of the natural resource management international waters, land degradation, around regenerative processes, and National LandCare Programme. Grants (sustainable management and ozone layer and persistent organic adapting and mitigate climate change. available for projects, amongst others, efficient use of natural agricultural pollutants. that: resources and production inputs) Improve the ability of land-users Rehabilitate natural resources to manage land, water and and protect biodiversity related vegetation in a Promote tourism sustainable and self-reliant manner; Promote integrated approaches to local catchment areas and regional planning Demonstrate innovative approaches to natural resource management Scope Focus on small, catalytic projects that The programme is focused on job Programme responds to the demand Fund is primarily a pro-poor rural Provide financial support in the form of bring community expertise together in creation and poverty alleviation. The from local communities and NGOs for development fund supporting the United grants and / or loan financing for the following areas: incentive for the environment and grants in GEF focal areas. Supports Nations Convention to Combat projects in three priority windows: Funding provided for works which culture sector is designed to channel the community-based approach for Desertification. Natural Resource Management are cost-effective and an integral additional resources to performing addressing local and global Green Cities and Windows part of a widely based natural sector programmes. Sector environmental challenges. Serves as a financial vehicle that could Low Carbon Economy resource management strategy. departments that create jobs are seek to address financial gaps in Planning and implementation of rewarded by reimbursing the relevant The programme empowers environmental finance. Create financial plans for sustainable agricultural department a portion of the wage costs. communities to act and participate in mechanisms and develop markets to natural resources management their own development and supports a support biodiversity conservation and and agriculture, especially at local direct connection between sustainable management; water; carbon emissions catchment and regional level. and local and global livelihoods. reductions and other environmental Investigations, trials and financial mechanisms. demonstration activities that encompass approaches to the The Drylands funding mechanism could sustainable management, have a role in administering these rehabilitation, and conservation of mechanisms and serving as mechanism

200

National Land Care Programme: Expanded Public Work Global Environmental Facility: Drylands Fund Green Fund Small Community Grants Programme Small Grants Programme natural resources. for channeling environmental finance. Funding to encourage the development and adoption of enhanced sustainable practices, which address causes rather than symptoms of resource degradation.

Responsible Department of Agriculture, Forestry and National Department of Public Works, Global Environmental Facility Department of Environmental Affairs Department of Environmental Affairs institution Fisheries and provincial departments of Department of Environmental Affairs government agriculture in collaboration with the and other sector departments. Department of Environmental Affairs. department / other

Links with other Projects should be aligned with national N/A SGP projects need to meet the GEF N/A As part of the project selection criteria, initiatives objectives as outlined in various criteria and the needs of communities. applicants need to disclose information strategies and policies. The SGP will need to mobilise on other sources of funding. additional resources to assist with, Applicants should seek funding from among others, providing co-financing, other sources as deemed appropriate. technical assistance and capacity For example, the Working for Water, building. Farmers Support Initiatives and programmes implemented by the NGO sector. Such funding and projects should complement the small grant initiatives.

Organisational Structure establishes linkages between The EPWP E&C sector programme is The Small programme structure The main elements of the mechanism The Green Fund is established as an on Structure national and provincial departments of coordinated by the Public Works includes representation of a global team are: budget programme of the Department agriculture, NGOs, and civil society. Department. The organisational for the GEF and country level Development of an Agency of Environmental Affairs. The structure structure includes: representation. Programme: DEA and the of the financing mechanism can be DEA is responsible for coordinating the Environment and Culture Sector Development Bank of South summarised as follows: implementation of international Programme Management Team The Central Global Management Team Africa Management Committee of the conventions. The organisational (comprising National Treasury, are responsible for regional Steering Committee: oversight Green Fund comprising DEA, structure comprises the following: Department of Tourism, coordination and support country function comprising government, National Treasury, and the Department of Agriculture, programmes on technical matters NGOs and business DBSA) MINMEC Agriculture: Forestry and Fisheries, Water related to focal areas and thematic Project implementation unit Government Advisory Panel: Intergovernmental Technical Affairs, Environmental Affairs and directions, capacity and partnership (management and operations of Usually led by DEA Implementing Committee on Agriculture Arts and Culture). development, knowledge management the fund): DBSA Agency: DBSA Interprovincial LandCare Working Secretariat: Public Works and monitoring and evaluation. Partnership forums: Donor Project Management and

Group National EPWP Coordinating community and investors Technical Advisory Project The Small Grants Programme operates Provincial LandCare Working Committee: Technical Committee Project development Support: DBSA and through country programme teams Group and representation by the Management Committee comprising the following at a national Provincial LandCare Advisory sectoral coordinating national level: Forum departments, 9 provincial

201

National Land Care Programme: Expanded Public Work Global Environmental Facility: Drylands Fund Green Fund Small Community Grants Programme Small Grants Programme LandCare Secretariat: coordinators and permanent National coordinator Department of Agriculture, nominated representatives from Programme assistant Forestry and Fisheries the key implementing national National Steering Committee in and provincial departments. participating country Hosted mostly by UNDP country offices in South Africa

Eligible Local community or combination of Implementing agents that serve as the Provides grants to civil society Possibly private sector, NGOs, and Government, private sector, NGOs, and applicants groups seeking to manage or conserve intermediary for potential beneficiaries. organisations especially NGOs, academia. academia. specific areas of land, water, vegetation community based organisations and or biodiversity. Community groups indigenous peoples organisations. should be registered. Two or more community groups working on a shared Community based groups that are not project can make a joint application. formally registered can work with the United Nations Office for Project Local government working with one or Services (UNOPs) and develop more community groups. Project should memorandum of agreements which demonstrate high community allows grants to be awarded to them. involvement and leadership of the These groups do not need to go project. through an intermediary NGO.

Project Assessment panels are formed in N/A The Small Grant Programme country Predefined project selection criteria. Predefined project selection criteria. application and regions or catchments and are programme prepares and issues an Assessment responsible for assessing the SGP programme announcement on applications in line with the selection completion of the Country Programme process criteria. Strategy and any revisions to the strategy. The assessment panel submits project recommendations to the Provincial Projects concepts are screened by the Endorsement Panel comprising National Coordinator or jointly with the Provincial Forum members to ensure National Steering Committee. The that projects meet provincial priorities. project concept selection is conducted on the basis of established eligibility Recommended projects from the region and selection criteria. are submitted to the National Department of Agriculture and a Once project concepts have been national panel is convened to fully selected and approved, qualifying assess all projects based on national organisations are notified and priorities and merits. requested to develop complete project proposals.

202

National Land Care Programme: Expanded Public Work Global Environmental Facility: Drylands Fund Green Fund Small Community Grants Programme Small Grants Programme Additional assistance may be provided for proposal development to the CSO / CBO by the NC. A local consultant may be hired to help the CSO/CBO and the SGP planning grant may be used. At project level, project proposal guidelines have been developed for the SGP. This requires information on: project rationale and approach description of project activities implementation plan and timeframe plan to ensure community participation knowledge management project monitoring, evaluation plan and indicators project budgetary requirements project funding summary including sources of funding

Administrative Successful applicants are expected to Clear contracting arrangements with the N/A N/A N/A arrangements sign a project management agreement. Project Implementing Agents to ensure implementation of the incentive. This sets out the conditions for funding including the recipient’s responsibility to Sector departments need to ensure that maintain accounting records for new targets, key performance spending of grant funds, and reporting indicators, porting times and audit requirements on the progress and requirements are incorporated into the results from the project. project agreements. They also have to ensure that the implementing agents have the necessary administration and financial systems to maintain the information / records required for the incentive.

Financial arrangements

203

National Land Care Programme: Expanded Public Work Global Environmental Facility: Drylands Fund Green Fund Small Community Grants Programme Small Grants Programme Funding Funding is allocated to projects on an As per the quantified incentive. US $ 50 000 maximum grant amount N/A Funding of R1.1 billion has been made annual basis. On-going projects are per project. This complements the available from the fiscus. There does subject to progress review and report. medium and large sized GEF project not seem to be a cap on the maximum funding. grant that can be awarded. However, R 100 000 (maximum) requirements for co-financing are built In special cases funding will be into the project assessment process. Project funding is provided for a provided at a maximum of US$ 150 000 maximum of three years to allow funds for strategic projects that involve to be directed to new emerging several communities and CSOs. priorities. Grants are disbursed directly to CBOs and NGOs.

SGP projects are funded for a period of between one and three years. The first disbursement should not exceed 50 per cent of the total project grant amount.

Reporting, monitoring and evaluation requirements

Reporting Project performance information needs Specific agreed reporting processes The National Coordinator reports on: N/A N/A requirements to be submitted as part of the annual and information requirements aim to Technical and substantive review and to comply with audit ensure and record progress on projects. matters to the Central requirements. The implementing agent at project level Programme Management Team needs to record certain data and and to the UNOPs portfolio Quarterly progress reports and financial information including: manager on administrative and reports also need to be completed for Site information financial issues. the Department of Agriculture, Forestry Payment information and Fisheries. Beneficiary / worker information The NC keeps the UNDP Country Office informed of progress in A final report needs to be compiled by This data enables proper project programme implementation project managers on completion of the reporting. Sector departments are project evaluating the successes and responsible for ensuring that the failures (learning’s) of the project in implementing agents are aware of the achieving its objectives. information requirements.

Monthly reporting is also required and the implementing agent must provide this information to the sector department’s project manager. The sector department will report their

204

National Land Care Programme: Expanded Public Work Global Environmental Facility: Drylands Fund Green Fund Small Community Grants Programme Small Grants Programme programme data to the National treasury on a monthly basis.

Reporting of project information on a monthly basis by the sector department to the National Department of Public Works including performance and basic financial information.

The monthly report from the sector department will be used as the basis to calculate the incentive amounts earned at the end of the quarter. Monitoring and The Department of Agriculture, Forestry Programme auditing will be undertaken Depending on the success of the Monitoring and evaluation framework is N/A evaluation, and and Fisheries may undertake periodic, by the NDPW on an annual basis. The project, additional funding can be in terms of the overall national audit ad hoc inspections of projects to ensure required information must be provided applied for on a case by case basis. framework for monitoring and that programme objectives and financial internal audit units of the sector implementation of the United National requirements accountability requirements are departments. The National Coordinator should report Convention to Combat Desertification adequately met. on technical and substantive project and the national Action Plan to Combat Programme evaluation will be and programme progress through the Desertification and Poverty. undertaken by the EPWP programme annual country programme report. unit to assess the impact and Impacts of the fund will be reviewed effectiveness of the programme. Audits of SGP country programmes will periodically by independent monitoring be conducted in line with internationally and evaluation teams. accepted auditing standards, and applicable financial rules and Fund is independently audited on an regulations. Audits cover management; annual basis. financial and administrative issues as they related to the country programme as a whole, and do not include requirements for project-level inspection.

Continuing Project managers will need to provide projects progress reports when applying for continued, additional funding. This should take into account resources to measure the impacts of the project relatives to its stated aims, benefits to the environment and possible social, economic and educational benefits to the community.

As a guide, it is recommended that 2 to 4 per cent of the total budget for the project is allocated for monitoring and

205

National Land Care Programme: Expanded Public Work Global Environmental Facility: Drylands Fund Green Fund Small Community Grants Programme Small Grants Programme evaluation. Ineligible Funding will not be provided for N/A N/A N/A N/A activities activities that are not aligned with national priorities and strategies, and will not duplicate funding from other sources (double dipping).

Funding for treating symptoms inappropriate past management (eg. reclamation of degraded land or removal of invasive weeds and plants).

Also, funding does not cover basic operating expenses, projects generating private benefits, and agricultural production which is not linked to sustainable agricultural and natural resource management.

REVIEW AND DISCUSSION

The above summary was undertaken primarily to help inform the governance structure and institutional arrangements for the SGF and specifically, to inform the identification of an Executing Entity for the SGF and to identify synergies between the different programmes. Below are some of the high level conclusions of the different programmes in relation to the SGF.

The National LandCare Programme: Small Community Grants component and the Global Environment Facility Small Grants Programme (SGP). Both these programmes are designed and targeted towards the provision of grants to non-governmental and community based organisations at grassroots level The Landcare programme focuses on natural resource management in the agriculture and land-use sectors whilst the GEF SGP channels funding towards key environmental focal areas including climate change and biodiversity. The LandCare programme represents a domestic initiative whilst the GEF SGP forms part of a global initiative of the United Nations. Furthermore, both these initiatives have developed quite comprehensive governance structures, institutional, monitoring and evaluation arrangements and reporting requirements and could offer useful lessons for the implementation of the SGF.

However, in contrast with these programmes, the SGF is designed to focus exclusively on climate change adaptation activities and should perhaps be viewed as a complementary initiative rather than as part of mainstreaming efforts to include adaptation related criteria into these existing programmes. In addition, important lessons can be learnt from the implementation of the SGF focused solely on adaptation that could also help to inform a medium to longer term strategy on microfinance for climate adaptation.

Expanded Public Works Programme. The EPWP programme is implemented as an incentive programme to promote natural resource management under the Environmental and Culture Sector component which includes the Working for Water Programme. Conceptually, the incentive is performance based and takes the form of a reimbursement to government line departments of a portion of the wage costs for jobs that are created per programme. The incentive is driven mainly by job creation as opposed to environmental criteria. This differs from the SGF which is an upfront grant allocation for projects focused mainly on adapting to the impacts of climate change and the design of the administrative structures and financial arrangements for the EPWP may be unsuitable for the SGF. Thus integrating the SGF into the EPWP programme may not be appropriate and could introduce further complexities into both systems.

Drylands Fund and Green Fund. The Department of Environmental Affairs is the responsible department for both these mechanisms. The Drylands fund seeks to scale up efforts to address environmental degradation, climate change and rural poverty in South Africa while the Green Fund provides financial support in the form of grants and / or loan financing for projects in three priority windows: Natural Resource Management, Green Cities and Windows and Low Carbon Economy. The scope of both these funds seems to have strong climate change adaptation elements;

206

however, they do not focus exclusively on adaptation and the extent to which micro-finance for community based organisations is prioritised is unclear. The SGF can therefore be viewed as complementary to these initiatives. One of the main features of these mechanisms that may be relevant for the SGF is the appointment of the Development Bank of South Africa as the implementing agency for both these mechanisms. However, consideration should be given to the on-going restructuring of the DBSA and possibly limited technical expertise and capacity of the institution to implement the SGF mechanism.

Overall, there is strong case to establish the SGF as a dedicated micro-finance facility for climate change adaptation initiatives and as complementary to the existing dedicated financing instruments discussed above. Taking cognisance of the existing mechanisms and the complexities of implementing the SGF as part of these programmes, there is a need to identify the executing entity of the SGF independent of these initiatives. The case for SANBI to be appointed as both the NIE and the executing entity therefore requires further consideration.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the summary and comparison of the different instruments in Table 1, and having considered the proposed model for the SGF (set out in Figure 1), it is concluded that it would be of value to consider SANBI playing the role of EE, much like the UNDP acts as EE for the GEF SGF. In this regard it is recommended that the NIE Steering Committee: Endorses a process whereby the NIE secretariat explores the feasibility and viability of SANBI acting as EE for the NIE SGF, including discussing this approach with the AF Secretariat. Agree to continue a strategic discussion on the sustainability of the SGF, and how it relates to other related financing instruments, over the SGF implementation period.

Such a process should examine the operating mechanisms of the above instruments, with a view to adopting appropriate best practice approaches, and compare the administration costs of utilising SANBI vs another agency for this function. Disbursement and procurement implications should also be considered.

207

Annex VII.2 Call for expression of interest and NIE SC TT recommendation

208

209

210

211

212